And the bottom line from your, rebuttal of the rebuttal of the rebuttal ...

"now is the time for individuals and governments to act to limit the consequences of greenhouse gas emissions on the Earth's climate over the next century and well beyond."

http://www.e-publications.org/ims/submission/index.php/AOAS/user/submissionFile/8887?confirm=6adde642

Couldn't agree more!

cohenite,

You're the one who appears to be bouncing around on a pogo stick...but it's usually only between two sites....BOING! - off he goes to Watts...BOING! - off he goes to Jo Nova.....BOING! - Watts.....BOING! - Nova.

It's especially stunning when both those sites laud the lovely/nice/good "Lord" Monckton - he of similar non-qualification (but with a whole lotta confidence and a denialist fan club)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/sep/21/climate-scientists-christopher-monckton

I've just spent a lovely morning with my son knee-deep in aqua waters, clear skies and sun shining while some dolphins came in to shore and swam around several of us...happens every day where we live.

It made this sort of story all the more sobering:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/01/the-latest-chinese-pollution-crisis/267123/

Poirot; I'm an ex member of Greenpeace, back when they were concerned with real pollution not money-grabbing, ideologically determined 'pollutants' like CO2.

Your photo shows smog and opaque air; CO2 is invisible and cannot be shown in photos; but I'm sure you knew that.

Since you frolic by the sea every day I'm sure you'll comforted by the latest paper on sea rise which shows over the 20thC the small rise was due to natural factors and is showing no sign of acceleration:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00319.1

I use primary data and studies Poirot and do not rely on other people even fine people like Anthony and Jo; you should try it.

qanda's response to my "Mann et al spent many many years trying to hide the data and their methods behind the graph so as to avoid scrutiny" was "That is a lie."

It is indeed true but I'm wondering which part qanda thinks is a lie. Does he think that Mann didn't hide the data and methodology or does he think he did it for reasons other than avoiding scrutiny? Or perhaps any criticism of Mann is, by default, a lie.

qanda wrote:"Listen up closely Mr/Mrs/MsHaze - SHOW ME where have I concurred with your assertion of CATASTROPHIC AGW (CAGW)?"

Huh? I have no idea what you're talking about. I assume that makes two of us. When did I say you concurred with my assertion on CAGW? For that matter what is my assertion on CAGW?

Oh, and its Mr but you can call me Sir :).

As to McShane and Wyner, if its possible to put the final nail in the coffin of something that's long since dead and buried, that's what they did to Mann's various HS.

I feel a little sorry for these chaps just as I felt for Wegman. A nice older man, a legend in his field, he had no idea what he was getting into. From the start it was clear that he was going to find against Mann since no honest assessment could do otherwise. What he didn't know was that anyone who even tangentially criticises the one true religion is declared a heretic and the attack dogs are unleashed. The unrelenting ad hom attacks were inevitable but he, being used to conducting science as an exercise in truth-finding, wasn't prepared for the onslaught from the new religion. I always felt sorry for him.

Others have suffered the same fate once they fail to pay due homage to Gaia and her new high priests. Lomborg, Curry, Peiser.

Hopefully, one day science will return to more professional times. But while ever there is such stupendous sums of government money available, we'll continue to see the pigs squealing to get their noses in the trough.

mhaze,

Actually your rants are an excellent example of the sort of rhetoric that is tossed about in the blogoshpere by denialists.

It really is an extraordinary phenomenon.

In which other age have rank amateurs had the temerity to trash a scientist's reputation in order to trash the science. In which other scientific or professional field would it be considered that those with qualifications and expertise are somehow deserving of derision amid accusations of "having their snouts in the trough"?

Big oil, big business and right-wing think tanks sure hit upon a potent strategy when they counted on there being enough swaggering high-school science graduates to blather their message of conspiracy up and down the blogosphere.

Nice try at twisting your intimation, mhaze. You wrote after your diatribe at Mann that "qanda is convinced that the literature proves CAGW". You mentioned CAGW, as in "Catastrophic" global warming - not he.

And, on the contrary, "unrelenting ad hom attacks" are a defining feature of denialist tactics (check out cohenite's usual fare for a start - and your own allusions aren't far behind). Just reading your last post was super-instructive of the strategy of accusing scientists of indulging in exactly your own ploys.

No wonder scientists, for the most part, avoid piddling arguments with ignorant "skeptics" - it's hardly worth the effort to listen to the ranting of tin-pot experts while ducking their rabid spittle.

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/science-in-an-age-of-scrutiny.html

Poirot, you don't frolic with dolphins, you are a dolphin.

Seriously Flipper, if I may call you that, now the truth is out, you have it exactly backwards when you castigate mhaze; it is not so much 'ordinary citizens' having the temerity to criticise their betters, the climate scientists, but the arrogance and deceit of the climate scientists pretending they are above the fray and common folk and are pure in their scientific endeavour.

Pull the other flipper, Flipper.