Hi Anthony,

This should be interesting? IMHO you will illicit a range of responses from the “new deniers”.

You will get the Little Britain response “Ah but, Yeh but, No but”
CAGW will again be “renamed”, possibly to Climate Research Aprils Projections.
You will be ignored.
You will be bombarded with links that “prove” that their own recanting scientists are wrong.
Your funding associations with “big everything” will be exposed.
You will be “found out” as a non-scientist for even quoting “their” own scientific research.
You will be declared insane.
You will be informed that you don’t understand/ lack intelligence.
You will become the subject of and ABC “Fatwa”.
They will tell you that “Missing Global Heat” has been recently “discovered” hiding in the basement at Flim Flummery’s waterfront property.
Michael Mann will send you yet another “revised” hockey stick.
Ross Garnaut will send you a “revised” economic analysis.
Flim Flummery will “confirm” that CAGW is causing brain shrinkage (his own).
They will offer you EU CO2 emission trading certificates at a discounted rate.
They will remind you that solar, wind, bio-mass and geo-thermal are ideal ways to power your car.
You will be informed that you will be responsible for murdering several future generations of biological life forms.
You will be accused of being misogynist, pedophile, a right wing nut job, capitalist filth and holocaust enthusiast.
They will shift their focus to some other “peak something” to frighten you.

Have a good day

I'd call those people Blind Freddies. Just because in January Sydney and Hobart recorded their highest ever temperatures since records began. Just because huge chunks of the polar ice caps are slipping away. That doesn't mean it's getting warmer.

I'd take this thesis to the next step and predict an imminent Ice Age. Present your findings to a peer reviewed scientific journal or failing that on talkback radio.

Anthony I do hope you have a better grasp of the law, as your grasp on science is tenuous at best. I won't bother to correct you as it will make no difference you have the zeal of a young earth creationist.

Any on lookers should go to a crediable website on the net run by climate reasearch organisation by climate scientist and see for themselves what climate scientists are saying

Hey Spindoc.

You will be “found out” as a non-scientist for even quoting “their” own scientific research

One already! Well said, I will keep a tally for you :)

Spindoc you state “They will shift their focus to some other “peak something” to frighten you".

Well this should be an important area of focus given the fact that combined crude oil production of the five main international oil companies (Exxon, BP, Shell, Chevron and Total) hit an historic high in 2004. Since then, it has fallen by 25.8%, despite large increases in investments.

The majors are all facing a decline in their crude oil production, which began in each case before 2007. This comes despite extremely large growth in their investments, allowed by the significant increase in crude oil prices experienced since the late 2000s. Total, for example, has seen its production fall by almost 20% since 2007, although the French giant now has at least 40% more extraction wells.

Consequently, as the known oil fields are getting depleted, production should become more and more concentrated in the major OPEC countries, starting (or finishing) with Saudi Arabia, as well as, to a lesser extent, in the former Soviet Union.

Evidence to date shows the development of non-conventional and extreme sources of oil, in particular shale hydrocarbons, will not be able to change the fact that cheap conventional oil production continues to fall globally.

Some ideas find their basis in fact, while others fall under the category of faith. As it turns out, those that are faith-based are the most difficult to overturn.

Discredit relating to peak oil is nothing but ideology based on ideas that are empirically false.

Such is the ideology of the fossil fuel optimists who tell us that the marketplace will bring forth whatever fossil fuel supplies we need when we need them at prices we like. Some, but not all, tell us that fossil fuel supplies have no practical limits because it is our imagination that brings them out of the ground. Statements like this are part and parcel of the kind of magical thinking that infects the public discussion about the future of energy.

Perhaps you know something geologists don’t? Perhaps you can elaborate on this ideology?

Well, we have just lived through the hottest summer on record. And that number is the result of collecting and collating average day and night ambient temps from the whole continent.
And the ice keeps slip sliding away, and in northern climes, taking whole towns with it.
And hitherto completely frozen permafrost is melting, releasing considerable methane as it does so.
I don't know where the author has buried his head? I dare say, some place warm and comfortable perhaps?
But would suggest he pull it out and take a look at the real would, or even 40 odd years worth of comparative satellite photographs.
Yes sure, some people don't want climate change to be happening?
I mean, they may have all their investment capital tied up in coastal property, or as shares in coal mines?
And look, you don't have to be a corrupt labour party member to want to own or trade shares in coal mines, but I guess it has to help?
Along with the mendacious disingenuous, perpetually pontificating pulpit pounding pious pomposity, [never ever and non core promises,] that makes such acquisitions, and or, a political career possible?
Rhrosty.

To add to salient comments by Rhosty, Taswegian and Geoff.

NASA states:

"In spite of a couple of cooling influences – the sun's low activity, and La Niña – the planet continues to warm. 2010 turned out to be tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record, and 2000-2009 the hottest decade on record". http://climate.nasa.gov/interactives/warming_world

NASA also has information on:

- Recent La Nina conditions, which have a cooling influence that counteracts C02 for short periods
-Increased SO2 from Chinese and Indian power stations also has a cooling effect.
- Ocean heat content continuing to rise steadily and 90% of global heating goes into the oceans.

Anthony I notice you didn't mention any of these facts. We'd all like your assertions about cooling to be true but most of us would trust NASA's analysis more than yours so we believe the unfortunate truth.

Unless perhaps you could impress us by mounting a better Mars mission than NASA has done.......

Guys - it says a great deal for global warming activists that all they can point to what is claimed to be a record hot summer.. now go and look at the Bureau of Met releases on this hot summer. Note how that the release says that temperatures exceeded the last record in the 1930s but doesn't say by how much. This is very likely because the margin is tiny (disagree? then what is the margin?), and my understanding is that's in part because they have better instrument coverage now than they did back in the 1930s.

Leaving aside that quibble, is that all you can point to after 80 years of global warming? As for the business about the polar ice melting, sorry but its all either highly contentious or with the caveat since they started satellite observations (back in the 1970s). The ice at both poles has been known to vary in historical times.

Pound this into your heads. It certainly is a warm decade but the problem with the AGW theory is that its meant to be getting warmer and it isn't. So why not? Sure you can point to various suggestions that really the heat is going into the oceans or additional aerosols from industrial activity are masking the temperature increases but they are basically suggestions.. a patch for the theory that failed to forecast what happened. Will that patch work? Can we now say anything sensible about what temperatures may be like to 20 or 30 years time??

Prof Flannery forecast the reservoirs in Queensland would never fill up again. Then there were massive floods. His reply was that he was entitled to say this to get us into line?
Now his forecasts are of the "last week was" that's AGW. What a joke!
By the way this nonsense is paying the two professors enough money for their waterfront properties, any other justification needed.

To have something labeled as true - tell a politician that they will be able to use it as an excuse to raise billions of dollars in taxes - they will find a way to get the scientific proof.

CARBON CON JOB.

Scientists are interested in argument, that is listening to those who do not agree with their theses. Hmm.

We 'ordinary' people do not have enough climate science to form strong opinions. My guess (only) is that it is all even more complex than imagined. For instance, considering the Earth's core to the upper atmosphere, convection and heat transference would be hard to calculate.Carbon storage in soils and oceans is a new study. Behaviour of our sun is adolescent perhaps.

Even if we don't heat up most people think it's time to start going easy on fossil fuels. But this will take some time, we are addicted to high energy, and, there are an awful lot of us.

Polar ice melting, methane release, changed ocean currents,(ice age?) hurricanes and so on; frankly, this would lead to some painful readjustment but it won't be the end of us

Dear Anthony
Please get a science degree, preferably one with some environmental subjects, before you waste any more of your life on this topic.

Curious M
the trouble with that attempt to dismiss obvious problems is that you don't need a degree in anything to see that there is a problem. You need one to fix it.. Scientists forecast various things and those forecasts, in temperatures and rainfall (with the poss exception of rainfall in WA), didn't work out..

So now that scientists have acknowledged the problem the next move is up to them. Maybe the theory is wrong or maybe it needs patching? either way it doesn't seem sensible to base policy on theory that still seems to be in difficulties..

Dear Curmudgeon
I have read your posts on many topics over the years and often they are intelligent assessments of the topic, but in this case I am sorry to say that you simply don't know what you are talking about. There is simply NO doubt or disagreement about the general trends wrt global arming amongst any credible scientists. While you don't need a science degree if you are prepared to accept the advice of an expert on the subject, you do nee one if you wnat to argue credibly against the weight of scientific opinion. In Anthony's case I would ask him to consider how well a person untrained in law will represent themselves in court, or in say a complicated contract negotiation (because he is doing about as good a job at being a scientist as they would at being a lawyer).

Curious M a One word answer to what you spouted "Thalidomide". Mate the white coat brigade caused immeasurable harm with that little money making exercise.
Scientists' are mostly full of it and I am not talking about knowledge or common sense!

Cohenite you might be interested in this article, http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jnCMgTuH-RgCGG9TUZVgiydUGuyQ?docId=CNG.0ee139d75a2f023316209b2fb16cb626.2e1

It outlines how the earth was cooling until the end of the 19th century and a hundred years later, the planet's surface was on average warmer than at any time in the previous 1,400 years, according to climate records.

In a study published in Nature Geoscience, scientists said a "long-term cooling trend" around the world swung into reverse in the late 19th century.

In the 20th century, the average global temperature was 0.4 degrees Celsius (0.7 degrees Fahrenheit) higher than that of the previous 500 years, with only Antarctica bucking the trend.

From 1971-2000, the planet was warmer than at any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

This measure is a global average, and some regions did experience warmer periods than that, but only for a time. Europe, for instance, was probably warmer in the first century AD than at the end of the 20th century.

The investigation is the first attempt to reconstruct temperatures over the last 2,000 years for individual continents.

It seeks to shed light on a fiercely-contested aspect in the global-warming debate.

Sceptics have claimed bouts of cooling or warming before the Industrial Revolution -- including two episodes in Europe called the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age -- are proof that climate variations are natural, not man-made.

Previous research into climate change has pointed to a warming spurt in the 20th century and attributed it to the rise of heat-trapping carbon gases emitted by burning coal, oil and gas.

Curious M
You're just a denialist. The warmists have been challenged on this site over and over and over again to prove their case, and each time have shown they've got nothing but all the logical fallacies that comprise your post, namely assuming what's in issue, appeal to absent authority and ad hominem.

Ho hum. All we can expect from those funded by big government to the tune of countless billions for a completely flaky belief system. Go and find out about the blatant fraud that comprises the scientific method your rely on before boring us with your cultic credulity.

Geoff of Perth
We have already established twice in two months that you are completely unable to defend the warmist argument many times over, so stop popping up and re-running the same cult fallacies.

Wow, Peter's on form tonight...

Two "fallacies"

An "absent authority"

and an "ad hominem"!

The spiel's on auto-play again.

Dear JKJ

Surely you do not seriously think that winning the "battle" against those you call the warmists and denialists on this site will in any way save the world?

The demand from some that they are owed an explanation, on their own terms, using their cherry-picked data is tedious, wrongheaded and just plain silly.

The place to discuss science is with experts, not fellow bar-flies.

This is not the first time that this little rag of a site has followed this path and I expect that it will not be the last.

I recommend that those who seek to understand the tactics used to support a priori bias often coming from the opposite side of this discussion should read the small article at the following linked address. It illustrates similar logical flaws in the argument for solar and PV, regardless of low-carbon and no-carbon alternatives which may well be able to be constructed faster, more reliably and safer.

The important thing to to listen to expertise and to discount non-expert opinion.

Untrained zealots and Anthony, take note.

http://decarbonisesa.com/2013/04/22/gilding-a-weak-argument-against-nuclear/#more-1815

JKJ states: "Geoff of Perth
We have already established twice in two months that you are completely unable to defend the warmist argument many times over, so stop popping up and re-running the same cult fallacies."

Interesting considering the link I posted and the evidence provided in the paper is hot off the press.

Perhaps you should go back to school and learn some basic chemistry and physics.

Then again, your mind is already made up, isn't it?

Me, well I will stick to the science and see where it leads, and yes I am more than open to changes and peer review that disputes earlier facts and assumptions in the 'science', you obviously just like to post and post and post, without any reference to demonstrated facts that completely counter any argument you purport to put forward.

Shallow as usual.

I just wish people would stop waffling on about this unless they can prove they can do something about it other than just play with themselves.

Geoff
Since you have failed repeatedly to show how your beliefs have any rational connection to policy because of your inability to deal with the factor of human evaluations, and when I have challenged you to prove what you're arguing you go quiet and slink off only to re-appear re-running the same belief system in a different thread, referring to more links that are "hot off the press" doesn't save your confused beliefs from being irrational.

The problem you're facing is not an inability to cite links hot off the press. Well know warmists can do that! The problem is that it doesn't prove what you're arguing! Your belief that it does only proves that your confused, or disingenuous. The problem is that your belief system doesn't make logical sense even in your own terms which is why you can't defend it. Like all warmists everywhere, you are unable to show whether the world faces detrimental anthropogenic global warming which policy can improve.

Admit it, or prove what you're arguing. Merely personalising the argument to me, as all the warmist responses have done, only proves your cult methodology.

Quite apart from the fact that the "science" you guys are uncritically relying on is riddled with blatant fraud and every kind of dodgy practice, even if it wasn't, it still wouldn't be capable of concluding the normative or political issues you are contending for.

Dear JKJ,

Oh goody. Looks like we can continue our excellent discussion of logical fallacies. We can both illustrate our enhanced grasp on them as I feel we both learnt a lot from our last session. What was going to be just another one of Anthony's boring and inane merry-go-rounds has just become fun.

Play on good sir!

Good choice of words there JohnBennetts, "Untrained zealots and Anthony, take note", could it be you are gaining some understanding? Yes I know, very doubtful, as you are no doubt "trained" as the vast majority of academics.

Trained to regurgitate something selected by your trainers as a good thing to train you in.

It is a pity that the necessity of obtaining research grants has meant universities no longer educate, but train. Train to believe stress causes stomach ulcers. Trained to believe the Y2K bug would stop the world in an instant. Gee that one was a good money spinner.

Then trained to spout global warming. Wow, what a money spinner that one has been.

Still if you weren't so well trained, perhaps you would realise that one is now done. Your masters are busy looking for the next, but of course, they'll have to train you to believe in it, after they find it.

Meanwhile, do keep making a fool of yourself, along with your trained mates. Must be careful, I almost typed monkeys. You know the theory, we only read the first & last letters of a word, so having watched you & said mates behaviour for a while, it would be a reasonable mistake.

Hasbeen,

Just musing....

Are you saying that everyone just sat on their rumps and did nothing in the case of Y2K - or did they take some pretty hefty measures to mitigate foreseeable problems?

curious M
Look, sorry, but you completely misunderstood what I was saying. I dunno if you've been aware of recent developments and my earlier posts but the scientists have admitted that temperatures trends in the past decade are not as expected. ie - headline warming has been much less than expected.. This is now widely admitted and acknowledged both informally and in the literature. There have been attempts to explain the "pause" as its being called.

So I wasn't challenging the theory, I was pointing out that with its poor forecasting record to date (both in rainfall and temperatures) its not really possible to base theory on it..

Curmudgeon,

Care to explain all the other "pauses" during the late twentieth century, in particular. You know the ones that preceded the rises?

Is this one different?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

Perhaps if you don't know the answer to that Poirot, that explains why you still believe in global warming.

Thousands of aircraft, with untouched computers did not fall out of the sky.

Hundreds of thousands of business computers rolled over to 1.1.00 & just kept working. I really don't recall a single instance of a computer having a nervous breakdown.

Yes it cost the taxpayer billions, a really good scam. Still not a patch on the global warming effort, that has made hundreds of billionaires.

Hear hear Hasbeen. Y2K bug had it all, catchy name, lots of gloomy looks, promises of disaster, earnest intelligent people telling us the world was going to end and Aaaaaaaaaaaaa, nothing! As far as I know no enquiry of that scam.
Global warming you can just shove it! The ABC can report the lie of the hottest summer on record but it is nonsense and I for one am sick of paying for it.
I am going to email my MP's and tell them drop global warming funding and the NBN. When the government last had the phones we waited 6 weeks for a phone but the local SP had 20 lines that afternoon. Of course I did not bribe anyone.
That tells you all about these scams.

So sorry, Hasbeen...I have to keep reminding myself how gullible I am.

Btw, talking of hoaxes, scams and conspiracies I'm sure you'll be engrossed by Arjay's latest effort in the general section: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5751

(Where do you buy the book that teaches you to blame human induced challenges on conspiracy?...It's obviously written by an ostrich:)

Poirot,

Hasbeen is right in that people like him are just (anti-science) zealots.

Hasbeen (says it all) is not a real scientist like he claimed to be.

Certainly not like this lot:

http://thiniceclimate.org/blog/details/2658/thin-ice-the-inside-story-of-climate-science

Play the trailer, watch the film.

JKJ I have no idea why I bother responding to your posts, you just don't get it.

As an old Buddhist adage says: If and when everyone is mindlessly stupid, will anyone notice?

In this case you seem to be the most mindlessly stupid of the lot, unfortunately for me I have noticed.

Geoff

Hasbeen,
The Y2K problem was real, but there was minimum problems because
many programmers worked a lot of overtime to convert files and programs.

In my case I had to get a new version and several hundred of us around
the world us had to do the same.
Those that tried to to continue on with the old version
caused problems in our white pages system.

Simple things like sort routines had to be fixed.

It is just plain silly to say that it was not a problem and it did
cost a lot of money to fix.

Poirot
Oh sure, the difference is quite straight forward.. in the other pauses, there was no forecast saying that temperatures would increase..

Now you may be quite right in saying that its a natural pause, or its due to natural factors over-ruling the alleged artificial ones. But the point is an increase was forecast and it didn't happen. So they are revising the theory. In the meantime you can't base policy on it, as it doesn't have a forecasting track record..

Dear Curmudgeon
One problem with most of the analysis of people trying to "disprove" global warming with words in this forum is that most of the people in this group are thinking in time frames that are way too small. I have seen a few graphs etc "proving" one point or other that are based on laughably small time periods eg decades or centuries. We are talking geological time frames here! eg hundreds of millenia.

A second problem is that most of the same people seem to have no grasp of the complexity of the system that the poor old scientists are trying to model. Us humans are still in the infancy of developing climate models and the real system is orders of magnitude more complex than our best model, so although the general trends are very apparent, you can expect errors as you try to get more specific. These errors do not disprove the general trend however.

A third problem for these people is that words are just that. You can appear to win the "argument" in this forum, but real changes ARE happening outside your window, just have a look!

curious M
don't disagree with a word of your post.. the problem is that its the activists and scientists who don't seem to remember the time frames. the earliest greenhouse warnings are now 25 years old, and various warnings over the years have set time frames of just a century, or in some cases 20-30 years for significant changes to occur - in other words, the changes are expected to occur within human life times, not geological times.

At present scientists are seriously warning that temperature changes in the next 30-40 years will be three times anything seen to happen in the past 25 years, despite nothing much happening in the last decade plus.. These warnings are very difficult to take seriously. In any case, there is simply no case to make policy based on greenhouse warnings, until scientists can point to a useful forecasting track record.

Curmudgeon,

Anthony Cox (solicitor and secretary of a political party) is inferring the vast majority of scientists are now the "deniers".

Perhaps everyone should watch this:

http://thiniceclimate.org/blog/details/2658/thin-ice-the-inside-story-of-climate-science

Your choice.

Well I don't know folks. We had lots of people wanting to "FIX" ours, for huge prices of course. No one touched them, & every thing kept working.

Two mates flying in PNG had no trouble, although they were assured they would fall from the sky, unless gross money changed hands.

Were your fixes before or after the day. Did something cease working, or were you assured that it was "fixed".

Hell even my home 486 stayed on the job.

So what if there is or isn't a climate change. My answer to that is a question none of them answer, what can the alarmists do about it if we give them more money. The deniers could use that money to become more environmentally friendly but that's about all. The change is going to happen with or without throwing millions at it. If there is a man made change man will not be able to prevent it now. So stop waffling on about it & get a real job so I don't feel I'm wasting my tax dollars so you can jet set round the world polluting the atmosphere.

The best of a bad lot, Geoff, links to a press release for a 'paper' which purports to show the current temp is the hottest in 1400 years.

This 'paper' was featured in the SMH, so it must be true.

However, the paper by McShane and Wyner, 2 of the world's best statisticians, which is linked to in the article, clearly shows this is NOT the case; even when the tainted data from Mann is used and interpreted properly.

M&W, of course, was not featured by the SMH; no sceptic is, which promotes the false idea of a consensus.

The proof in the article is clear and concise; noone has commented on it and Spindoc is vindicated; what a pathetic bunch alarmists are.

Most ironic post by JohnBennets; "rag of a site"; well it is when JB turns up.

This would be an abstract of the "paper".

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo1797.html

Explained a little more fulsomely here:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pages2k-confirms-hockey-stick.html

This paleo stuff just keeps coming.

And the "skeptics" keep thrashing away with their feather dusters - it's pathetic really.

..................

Thanks for the link, qanda.

Looks good : )

You're such a dope Poirot; even the graph from the 'paper' shows the MWP WARMER than today in every reconstruction except Mann's:

http://skepticalscience.com//pics/Ahmed_2013_paleo_fig4.jpg

It's a good film Poirot, no ideological tripe.

Anyone who ignores or dismisses it has their head in the sand.

No Hasbeen, the new version came out before and when the data from the
old versions arrived I wrote a quick patch to snatch them and convert
them and send a message back to update.
So in this part of the world we never saw many, but before the patch
if they got in they were a nuisance as they would not expire for 9000 years.

It did not cost us any money as the software is freeware and the French
author fixed it all.

"It's a good film Poirot, no ideological tripe."

It starts with an image of a child; the use of children by the alarmists is despicable:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/kids.html

AGW is nothing but ideological tripe. 'Trust me, I'm a climate scientist.'

Mr Cox, did you watch the film?

http://thiniceclimate.org/blog/details/2658/thin-ice-the-inside-story-of-climate-science

Are the scientists in that film the "deniers" as you impugn in your topic?

Are the scientists the "alarmists" and "extremists" as the ideologues in the film say?

I looked at it qanda.

I saw some establishment shots of scientists being just ordinary, good folk, some ice tunnels and some comments about those good scientists being demonised by frothing at the mouth deniers.

I'm not interested in this makeover crap.

The ideological message of AGW has been pushed with aggression, intolerance and constant vilification of deniers.

That message has failed. Now, in typical and hackneyed political fashion we are going to see the good climate scientists be reinvented as just average nice guys with a goodhearted concern about everyone else.

This article presents some objective evidence; you have not commented on it but simply linked to this ad promoting the film.

Comment on the evidence; pick a bit and say where it is wrong and stop insulting me with this emotional crap.

cohenite,

"I saw some establishment shots of scientists being just ordinary good folk..."

As opposed to what?

Tell us how you think scientist really behave.

We know there is a concerted effort amongst skeptics (whose layman representatives are themselves usually extremely obnoxious) to paint climate scientists as demonic scammers.

Here's a video from people who obviously don't know the first thing about glaciers, and who are really after grants to fund their skiing trips.

http://vimeo.com/51589462

Regarding your problem of Simon Lamb sitting beside his daughter to highlight the innocence and vulnerability of those who depend on us to make wise choices. Yes, it's an emotive technique, but it's a babe in the manipulative woods compared to this effort from the denialist camp.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/09/local/la-me-gs-unabomber-billboard-continues-to-hurt-heartland-institute-20120509

Lastly, Andy Lee Robinson has done it again....

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/04/23/arctic-ice-mass-loss-visualized/

Tell us how you think scientist really behave.
Poirot,
They almost all live off the taxpayer, only a handful ever make sufficient sense to create revenue. I firmly believe in science & research but I draw the line when it comes to propping them up all their lives. By all means pay them a wage & when they do make a significant discover let them have their fair share. I really have a serious problem with the eternal researchers at great expense to us. How would you feel if the mechanic fixing your car or the builder building your home would never finish & you just have to keep paying. That's how many so-called scientists & well educated people behave in general. Like our consulting engineers who do upgrades instead of admitting their mistakes & each upgrade just makes everything more unworkable. Of all paid for courtesy australian taxpayer by order of a Labor Government.

Tell us how you think scientist really behave.
Poirot,
They almost all live off the taxpayer, only a handful ever make sufficient sense to create revenue. I firmly believe in science & research but I draw the line when it comes to propping them up all their lives. By all means pay them a wage & when they do make a significant discover let them have their fair share. I really have a serious problem with the eternal researchers at great expense to us. How would you feel if the mechanic fixing your car or the builder building your home would never finish & you just have to keep paying. That's how many so-called scientists & well educated people behave in general. Like our consulting engineers who do upgrades instead of admitting their mistakes & each upgrade just makes everything more unworkable. Of course all paid for courtesy australian taxpayer by order of a Labor Government.

Insult you, Mr Cox?

One who plays the emotion card in front of 'judge and jury'.

You are starting to sound as logical and as intelligent as the post(s) just above.

"Trust me, I'm a lawyer"

-

Individual x2

You left out 'you know whats' and political ideologues.

That's quite amusing, individual.

Pray tell, when should a scientist consider themselves to have finished?

You obviously consider it as something with a finite engagement, like the construction of a house or the repair of a car. The same goes for scientists and researchers, are you suggesting we put a time limit on each scientist and if he doesn't deliver a breakthrough in that time, then we turf him?

Einstein famously remarked: "You ask me if I keep a notebook to record my great ideas. I've only ever had one."

Guess what? Human adaptation, discovery and advancement is an evolution. It's not something that has a point where we all pack up and go home at a certain point.

Yes, I know you have a particular aversion to anyone who appears to be "over educated", but there you go, human beings are curious clever creatures even if they're often not wise.

(Regarding upgrades. I'm sure you'd be delighted to still be using some of the first computers. It's a shame all those advances and upgrades have delivered you the technology of the 21st century)

Pray tell, when should a scientist consider themselves to have finished?
Poirot,
That's a rather evasive reply. I believe I have paid enough taxes by now to not pay anymore. Would the bureaucrats agree with that ? No ! Then how can they justify paying people who never invent anything or discover anything ? It really is as it is with academics & scholars. You get a handful of good ones but the masses of hangers on try to align themselves with the real scientists & academics thus dragging all others into disrepute. How much do some of these scientists get paid for never finding anything ? Can you provide some figures ?

individual,

"Can you provide some figures?"

No, but I can supply some common sense.

Arthur Koestler maintained the view (with which I agree) that great leaps are the sum of combinations - or bi-association - reshuffling of already existing but separate ideas, facts, perceptions and concepts.

Adaptation and progress in knowledge rests on the shoulders of many, most of whom plod away anonymously, providing others with a nexus which otherwise would not exist.

Even great and notable scientists acknowledge their debt and realise that they are but a single link in a chain.

Newton: "If I have seen further than others, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

No, but I can supply some common sense.
Poirot,
That's what many of us do every day of the year without costing others a lot of money for nothing in return.
Many even cop ridicule, why even you have dished that out here on many occasions when you didn't see or understand that common sense.
I have just had the pleasure of watching engineers waste a lot of your & my tax dollars despite myself & others offering them so much common sense that it almost hurt. Yet they went ahead with not listening to us. A great majority of so-called scientists fall into the same category as our engineers. End result ? No result for a lot of Tax payers Dollars.

I can't believe that none of the straightforward, clearly described defects in AGW in the article have been addressed.

Poirot links to the Unibomber and Heartland; an unnecessary juxtiposition of alarmists and cranks when AGW supporters do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIsritzu1og

AGW scientists are not honest because AGW science is flawed and wrong; only deniers, liars and ideologues and suckers continue to proselyse it.

"AGW scientists are not honest because AGW science is flawed and wrong; only deniers, liars and ideologues and suckers continue to proselyse it."

In that case, it's a wonder Heartland finds it necessary to come up with such (disastrous) whizz-bang campaigns to counter it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/05/06/heartlands-unabomber-fiasco-is-par-for-the-course/

Moreover Poirot:

The Heartland Institute’s justification for using a couple of infamous psychological deviants on their billboards is to deny AGW and associate these nutters to anyone who genuinely thinks AGW is real and significant.

Anthony Cox, in saying:

>> AGW scientists are not honest because AGW science is flawed and wrong; only deniers, liars and ideologues and suckers continue to proselyse it" <<

is so profoundly stupid and is akin to what the Heartland Institute proselytizes themselves:

>> The most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen <<

Yep, this so called 'lawyer' and political ideologue of the "Climate Sceptics Party" would equate people like Charles Manson and the Unabomber with the more prominent advocates of AGW such as the Dalai Lama, the Pope and pretty much all the scientific institutions on the planet - let alone the vast majority of real scientists practicing in their respective fields:

http://thiniceclimate.org/blog/details/2658/thin-ice-the-inside-story-of-climate-science

Typical deflection by Poirot and qanda who focus on Heartland's use of the unibomber to establish the crankery of AGW while similtaneously ignoring the despicable use of children by AGW to sell its message:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/kids.html

I mean look at the picture of the hanging girl used by the alarmists; and look at the other examples of children by the alarmists which are tantamount to child abuse:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/39750.html

Kids are being terrified by the scaremongering:

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/australian-kids-are-living-in-climate-of-fear/story-e6frfkvr-1226091097398

They are being taught self-loathing:

http://mises.org/daily/2997#_ftn6

And all you defenders of the indefensible can come up with is how terrible Heartland is to use the unibomber.

cohenite,

My personal opinion is that the use of the noose was over the top - something akin to Australia's initial AIDS education commercials.

What is needed in education is a goodly dose of self-reflective analysis - not straight out denial.

None of that establishes that climate scientists are liars and frauds.

Why are scientists who work in areas of climate singled out to be liars and scammers?

Regarding Borlaug and his miracle. Is it sustainable at current levels?

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/india_water.html

How is depleting groundwater tables, degrading and poisoning the soil, putting peasants into enormous debt and luring them to shanty towns on urban fringes, engendering tens (hundreds) of thousands of debt induced suicides, sustainable for India as a society in the long run?

And check this out from the "skeptic" leaning Murdoch camp.

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/dear-miranda-devine-the-tabloid-press-is-killing-children-by-discouraging-vaccination-not-climate-scientists/

Shifty, shifty, lefty, lefty...there's no end to the inventive bollocks of the denial camp.

Poirot, you just muddy the waters.

The sceptics I know all believe in evolution, vaccination, are against cigarette smoking and real pollution; they're all reasonable, rational people.

There is an article here showing straightforward and profound defects with AGW; neither you or the other hand wavers and wringers have gone near those points but instead raised this rubbish about Heartland and the unibomber and the other usual ad homs.

Amazing but typical.

Mr Cox

You have been very active in supporting the 'Lord' Christopher Monckton.

Why?

cohenite,

What do you reckon about this?

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/how-tony-abbott-killed-the-australian-climate-sceptic-movement-and-schooled-them-in-realpolitik/

Here's a piece relating to your article.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/04/the-answer-is-blowing-in-the-wind-the-warming-went-into-the-deep-end/

What do I reckon Poirot? I reckon you should start reading the links you offer. The RC link attempting to justify a continuation of warming by AGW relies on Trenberth's new paper which is critiqued in the article and the Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 effort.

F&R 2011 was shredded in the blogs; it made elementary errors. I have shown a number of times that F&R have [inadvertently] proven that Climate Change is fully explained by the Multivariate ENSO Index (MEI), the Total Solar Irradiance (PMOD), and the Volcanic Aerosol Optical Depth data (AOD).

In other words, F&R have proven that CO2 has no role in climate change.

More particularly, the RC post you link to says this:

"After the powerful 1997-98 El Nino, heat flowed out of the tropical oceans in order to heat the atmosphere (evaporative cooling) and the higher latitudes."

That is not true as the article shows; the atmosphere temperature has remained flat or shown cooling since 1998, or before, or soon after, in all of the major temperature indices.

As regards wind and increasing wind as an agent for moving the 'heat' to the deep ocean, did you understand what the RC post was saying about the role of winds in ocean heating? If you did good luck to you because I didn't and as far as I can see the 'slight' increase in wind speeds globally [although that is controversial with some studies finding stilling] provides no mechanism by which surface warming, which isn't there, can be transported to the ocean depths without warming the upper ocean and ocean surface.

cohenite,

Considering I'm not a scientist (that makes two of us:), I seem to have a knack for picking up salient points.

You, on the other hand, have just enough science to mangle the subject.

Telling me that F&R were shredded in the blogs (and which blogs would that be?)and that you have critiqued this or that is about as hard-hitting as it gets with you.

What's your opinion of the MWP not being globally uniform compared to today?

You didn't address Abbott's "about face/sleight of hand" on carbon.

I'll have to dash as I have a cake to make (domestic science:)

Poirot I thought this was a discussion regarding climate change, not social policy in India.

It is quite obvious you made a definite decision to avoid reading, &/or understanding the climate gate Mk1 & 2 emails.

No one who read many of those emails could assume anything but that your esteemed "scientists" are nothing but carpetbaggers, desperate to keep their faulty science afloat amidst a flood of proof that it was always wrong, & can not hold water against the latest research.

They may once have had belief in what they were saying, although that would be more wishful thinking actually. Today there is no excuse for anybody, without a vested interest, either financial, or emotive, to continue its promotion.

Your introducing India & other red herrings into the discussion proves your interest is in using the now scam to gain some end, rather than actually believing it.

I think Abbott is being guided by Hunt who is a chronic alarmist and apart from getting rid of the CO2 tax, which he must do otherwise he will look like Juliar, I think Abbott will squib getting rid of the RET and the destructive other legislation.

F&R is a bad paper; looking at their EQUATION 2:

GISS = -91.43 + 1.024Trend + 0.0761MEI(4m lag) + 0.06694TSI.PMOD(1m lag)- 2.334AOD (7m lag)

(1) GISS = 1.024Trend + bx + c

(2) GISS = 1.0Trend + 0.024Trend + bx + c

(3) GISS = (GISS + d) + 0.024Trend + bx + c

(because y = mx + d, where m=slope=trend, d=y intercept)

(4) 0 = 0.024Trend + bx + e

(5) Trend = -(bx + e)/0.024

F&R have not solved for GISS. By including Trend(GISS) as an independent variable they have eliminated GISS. What they have shown is that the Trend in GISS can be fully explained as a linear result of MEI, TSI, and AOD, without any reference to CO2.

If you think I'm wrong in agreeing with that conclusion explain why.

Anyway, this is ironic because Foster has made the same mistake he accused McLean, Carter and de Freitas of making.

The MWP being global? Esper thinks so:

Esper, J. and Frank, D. 2009. The IPCC on a heterogeneous Medieval Warm Period. Climatic Change 94: 267-273

Blow it out yer ear, Hasbeen.

I was responding to a link provided by the esteemed cohenite, written by him and Jo Nova for the Drum, where he was discussing those very points - even mentioning Borlaug...

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/39750.html

Next time you parachute into a conversation, perhaps you should survey the topography a little more fulsomely.

Well Poirot, your most convincing argument yet in your promotion of the fraud.

Come to think of it, you've never submitted an argument, just appeals to very doubtful authority.

You can't follow the maths, or comprehend the English, Mr Cox. Perhaps others can:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/fulltext/

That pesky EQUATION 2 ... got everybody stumped.

qanda; look at Table 1 from F&R; add the linear trend for GISS of 0.167 deg C/Decade to their multiple regressions of each of the independent variables, ENSO (MEI), Solar (PMOD), and Volcanic Aerosol (AOD)along with their lags, as estimated by F&R, and you get this 2nd equation [the first being F&R's multiple regression of only the independent variables]:

GISS = -91.43 + 1.024Trend + 0.0761MEI(4m lag) + 0.06694TSI.PMOD(1m lag)- 2.334AOD (7m lag)

How is that wrong?

Because it is not "their EQUATION 2", Mr Cox.

It is yours, based on a simple cherry pick and an even simpler math - ask Hasbeen. It's more complex.

If you want to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk - OLO doesn't cut it. I understand why you think it does.

You are wrong.

Hasbeen,

You left out climategate 3.

Are you intimating by omission that it was a bit of a fizzer?

How disappointing for all of you. (You'll be taking all those trumpets down to Cash Converters, then?)

Still, it happens when people keep flogging an initially successful strategy/movie/book.

Gets a bit stale after a while, especially when any real substance was lacking in the first place.

qanda pronounces:

"You are wrong."

Haha.

And then says:

"Because it is not "their EQUATION 2""

Wrong; as explained, it is based entirely on F&R's work, data and assumptions; so how can it be wrong.

Hasbeen can make up an equation based on Einstein's work, Mr Cox - doesn't make it right.

You can make up stuff all you like too, Mr Cox - doesn't make it right.

Now, if you want to distort and misrepresent the maths/science to suit your own ideological agenda - please do, it's amusing over morning tea. That's all.

qanda, you're a troll; you've been given all of F&R's data, assumptions and information; you've been shown how their use of that data is flawed and you still waffle on; what's the matter, can't you do a bit of regression?

Now the ad homs start - typical.

I'm sure your opinion is valued here Mr Cox but best stick to your soliciting.

cohenite,

The denier message just gets more garbled by the moment. Anthony Watts must sit up in bed at nights trawling the depths of his imagination for angles.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/28/stephan-lewandowsky-flees-australia-in-wake-of-investigations/#comment-1290540

to clarify:

http://www.bris.ac.uk/news/2013/9330.html

and this must have stretched his creativity somewhat...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/28/lysenkoism-and-global-warming-theory/

Entertaining what!

You're a funny girl Poirot.

Pointman, a real scientist, has a good post about the Lewandowsky's of the world:

http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/05/25/the-real-bastards/

cohenite,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

Hahaha ... spot on Poirot.

You know, what I find really laughable is when Mr Cox ('fake sceptic' and secretary to an ideological political party) tries to 'slam dunk' a robust peer reviewed statistical analysis by an eminently qualified statistician and has the audacity to assert the experts make elementary errors. Astounding!

What an absolute joke he is.

Mr Cox shows elementary stupidity himself by not understanding the problems with collinearity in multivariate regression analysis (despite this being pointed out to him and despite data and methods being explained) and has the temerity to 'verbal' and claim the experts have said something they in fact haven't.

Not only this, when Mr Cox is challenged - he resorts to ad hominem. This is telling - Mr Cox is just smoke screen and mirror. His OLO fan club appear to have departed - so too do I.

Have fun :)

Poirot, Godwin's law only applies to circumstances where the comparison is improperly made.

Lewandowsky actively describes sceptics as mentally suspect, the first step towards removal of social rights; he is on the same wavelength as people like Hamilton who want to suspend democracy and who encourage civil disobedience.

This is Nazism 101 and Godwin's Law does not apply.

Anyway, I have work to do and I'm sure you want to catch up with the other pixies and Emily listers.

cohenite,

It's becoming increasingly difficult to track the "skeptical" argument. It's all over the place.

One minute it's not warming, the next it is but it doesn't matter (or it's a good thing) or it's preventing the next ice age or causing it, or it's the sun, but it's cooling, etc.....we have the Lord Monckton running around the dominions threatening to have anyone who disagrees with or challenges him reported to the police, advocating the courts for scientists. Next we have a challenge to peer review, endless conspiracy theories....anything it seems but actual science.

Re your Pointman article:

" Why am I telling you these stories? Well, apart from the basic brutality [?], they share a common denominator. All these crimes against humanity were facilitated and made possible because of the co-operation of the more educated professional segments of the populace. The authority figures. They helpfully produced studies and research on minorities, which the state was determined to eliminate."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

Victor Venema on peer review.

http://variable-variability.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/value-peer-review-science-press.html

qanda, where does F&R involve collinearity? Did they use a linear time trend or a linear trend? Is the trend used/found by F&R for GISS 1.024 and the overall trend 1.024 + other variables such as solar, volcanoes and ENSO? If so does this not mean that - 0.024 Trend(GISS) = other variables so that in effect F&R have simply fitted GISS to itself?

Feel free to have the same amount of audacity in your answer as I apparently have in my posts.

Take a deep breath and read, very slowly:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/fulltext/

with an open mind, it would help.

Good night Mr Cox.

qanda, q&a; both sactimonious, supercilious and vacuous; and a waste of space and money.

Mr Cox,

Quote:
>> F&R is a bad paper; looking at their EQUATION 2:

GISS = -91.43 + 1.024Trend + 0.0761MEI(4m lag) + 0.06694TSI.PMOD(1m lag)- 2.334AOD (7m lag)

Yada, yada, yada …

F&R have not solved for GISS. By including Trend(GISS) as an independent variable they have eliminated GISS. What they have shown is that the Trend in GISS can be fully explained as a linear result of MEI, TSI, and AOD, without any reference to CO2.

If you think I'm wrong in agreeing with that conclusion explain why. <<

Wait, there is more:

>> qanda; look at Table 1 from F&R; add the linear trend for GISS of 0.167 deg C/Decade to their multiple regressions of each of the independent variables, ENSO (MEI), Solar (PMOD), and Volcanic Aerosol (AOD)along with their lags, as estimated by F&R, and you get this 2nd equation [the first being F&R's multiple regression of only the independent variables]:

GISS = -91.43 + 1.024Trend + 0.0761MEI(4m lag) + 0.06694TSI.PMOD(1m lag)- 2.334AOD (7m lag)

How is that wrong? <<

.

Response:

“Because it is not "their EQUATION 2", Mr Cox. It is yours, based on a simple cherry pick and an even simpler math - ask Hasbeen. It's more complex.

If you want to talk the talk, you have to walk the walk - OLO doesn't cut it. I understand why you think it does.”

But wait, there is more:

“Mr Cox shows elementary stupidity himself by not understanding the problems with collinearity in multivariate regression analysis (despite this being pointed out to him and despite data and methods being explained) and has the temerity to 'verbal' and claim the experts have said something they in fact haven't.”

.

Mr Cox’s retort:

>> qanda, where does F&R involve collinearity … yada, yada, yada <<

.

Response:

Mr Cox, they didn’t … you did, in YOUR equation 2.

What F & R 2011 show is that if you remove the 'noise' of El Niño/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability from the time series, the only other exogenous factor that explains the warming trend is CO2.

Q.E.D.

qanda,

I'm sure you'll be interested in this:

http://oncirculation.com/2013/04/30/6510/

Perhaps it's what cohenite means by "being shredded in the blogs".

Q&A gets the declared intention of F&R right; they claim to isolate the AGW warming signal by removing, not noise, but the temperature impact of the other exogenous factors such as volcanoes, ENSO and the sun.

But they make at least 2 ‘mistakes’.

The first is they include the temperature trend in the multivariate regression; they say this:

“Using multiple regression to estimate the warming rate together with the impact of exogenous factors, we are able to improve the estimated warming rates, and adjust the temperature time series for variability factors.”

But trend is NOT an independent variable, it is dependent on exogenous factors so the issue is should the trend have been included in the multivariate regression analysis?

The short answer is no because the trend itself is contributing to the finding of the trend; as I said before F&R are using GISS to prove GISS.

That is statistical chicanery.

The 2nd issue is they have defined at least ENSO wrong and misunderstood the effect of solar.

F&R say this about ENSO:

“This confirms that the influence of ENSO is greater than that of volcanic forcing and much greater than that of solar variation, and that both ENSO and volcanic forcing affect LT temperatures much more strongly than surface temperature.”

LT is lower troposphere; but ENSO is a coupled surface and atmosphere effect; you cannot assume ENSO only affects LT temperature and reduce ENSO to an index as F&R have done for that reason.

Likewise with solar; it’s effect is a cumulative one which an estimation of lag does not deal with; by assuming the effect of solar is finished at the expiration of an assumed lag as F&R do is to miss the effect of solar on temperature as this paper explains:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1108.0004v1.pdf

F&R also do not find a break or step in the temperature trend which contradicts a large number of papers; see:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1650

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Douglass_Knox_pla373aug31.pdf

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf

http://www.arl.noaa.gov/documents/JournalPDFs/Seidel&Lanzante.JGR2004.pdf

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/203_2001GL014074.pdf

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/2011-09.pdf

It is not my equation; it is a fair representation of what F&R have done. Q&A’s failure to understand that is his problem.

Thanks Poirot, I think Claire Krause summed it up pretty well:

>> despite the online opinions of some individuals, at least the scientific findings are being noticed by places where there can be a push for action to address climate change. (What's the bet on Mr Abbott having a 'revelation moment' when AR5 is released?)

It may feel like slow, baby steps forward, but the scientific puzzle-pieces that are building the climate change picture are coming together, and the arguments of vocal individuals who feel threatened by the scientific evidence seem to be becoming more like school yard name calling than informed debate. <<

Anyway, looks like Mr Cox is on to something: open web-publishing of material that's been written by a mate (I mean peer) and rejected (if at all it was submitted) by the relevant journal (Environmental Research Letters) on a paper that he wants to critique here ... on OLO for Pete's sake. It really does sound like Mr Cox is getting more shill. One could be forgiven for thinking Cohenite (I mean Mr Cox) is full of himself, and full of it.

Wow Cohenite, you are a bit smug matey. All the scientific mumbo jumbo, all the links and all the gobbledegook about regression. Mate this year was not any different and when the ABC and then you blokes bombard me with OH YES IT IS like some music hall turn I am not only not intimidated but even surer of myself.

The European have come a gutser with their emissions trading scheme and the Chinese do not even notice us.

All it needs is for Prime Minister Tony Abbott to cut all climate science (Something invented a few years ago)funding and watch you bludgers try and frighten the punters with some new nonsense.

Year 2k nonsense and scientists giving us Thalidomide you are taking a lend of us. Goodbye!

JBowyer....er, cohenite's on your side....

Regarding Tony and his ability to "cut climate science".

Things seem to have a moved on a bit.

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/how-tony-abbott-killed-the-australian-climate-sceptic-movement-and-schooled-them-in-realpolitik/

Really, you gotta laugh ... out loud!

Poirot I think Mr Bowyer was speaking to Q&A who has the monopoly on smugness around here.

You can't win though, when you go to the trouble of understanding the gross defects in AGW 'science', you get accused of "gobbledegook".

It's not my fault that F&R is a dog's breakfast that proves nothing other than statistics can prove anything.

When Abbott revealed his true feelings about AGW, that it is "crap", the luuvies got on his case; I'm sure he has pulled his head in and moderated his descriptions; but I'm confident he knows AGW is a plaything of the eco-nuts, commies and ivory-tower smarties.

Hunt is the worry.

Oh, I don't know, cohenite, he did refer to your abundance of "links" from the previous post.

My theory is he saw references to equations and attempts at actual science, and immediately fell back to an ideological stance that dictates that anybody who does that must be a scammer. You're one of the few in blog comments who tries to argue the science before you invoke the "fraud" - as opposed to merely invoking the "fraud".

I'm wondering about a new strategy to control science funding and/or communication in North America.

Canada is a case in point:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2013/03/scientific-freedom-canada

Mutterings in the US.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/04/us-lawmaker-proposes-new-criteri-1.html

Poirot; transparency is the key to science and most things.

AGW has suffered a lack of transparency and frankly the reputation of science has taken a hit.

One of your links refers to Holdren, and he is a case in point; Holdren is the exemplar of science in the US yet he has some extreme views based on rather alarming ideology. For instance In their 1977 book, Ecoscience, Holdren and his mentor, Ehrlich advocated forced abortions and community sterilisation. They also supported a world superagency for control of population and the environment. This idea has underpinned the United Nations approach to AGW and was central to the Copenhagen process with the Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC] solution to AGW based on the UN having governmental status and powers.

Science can be corrupted in 2 ways; firstly in the usual mundane way through money and secondly, and more profoundly, through ideology, Noble Cause Corruption, where the scientist distorts his science to fit his moral perspective.

Both sorts of corruption thrive in a lack of transparency and accountability. And both should be resisted.

cohenite,

"Transparency is the key to science and most things".

Agree.

What then can we make of this?

http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/04/canada-investigates-silenced-muzzled-scientists

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22005706

Of course it would have nothing to do with the Harper government, big business, oil sands and Keystone.

Diabolical.

Poirot, I agree; now in the interests of balance please provide some examples of how governments have censored sceptics of AGW and renewable energy.

There are plenty.

pffft

Poor Q&A, like his namesake, suffers from wind.

pffft

Synonyms:

break, dedomiciling, departure, detachment, dialysis, disconnection, disengagement, disjunction, disrelation, dissociation, dissolution, disunion, division, divorce, divorcement, embarkation, estrangement, farewell, gap, leave-taking, parting, parting of the ways, partition, pffft, rift, rupture, segregation, severance, split, split-up

Antonyms: togetherness

.

My take Mr Cox?

I don't care ... your are full of it, literally and figuratively.

"Pffft"

Well yes, qanda...it gets like that sometimes : )

cohenite,

Graham Readfearn, I'm sure you'll be thrilled to know, has summed up a whole lotta "skeptic" rant from the last week or so.

I'm sure you'll understand why I have to link to it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/planet-oz/2013/may/02/how-climate-scientists-being-framed

Seriously Poirot, you expect me to respond to Readfearn? What next, Christine Milne?

Neither you or the aptly named Q&A have responded to the article and its points, particularly the 3 diagrams which are as plain as can be done and are contradictory of AGW.

If people believe in AGW then they can imagine anything they want.

I'm not interested in that or the casting aside of empirical evidence.

If you want to talk about the diagrams please do but don't bother me with the ratbaggery of people like Readfearn.

Sorry about that, cohenite.

I don't know what came over me.

Don't be too disappointed with the lack of engagement with the substance of your article.

It's only OLO, after all.

The three 'diagrams' cohenite?

Surely you don't mean the three graphs you presented, two of which are just plain screenshots of out-of-context calculated trendlines without actual data points? You could have at least included the 95% confidence limits on those trends, i.e. the ones that show statistical significance?

Sorry, but all of those three "diagrams" wouldn't pass muster for any journal, except perhaps Energy and Environment, and even then I'd be doubtful.

You should have consulted with your mate Stockwell in Emerald, he would have told you.

Thank you Bugs for that welcome light relief; confidence levels, that's a good one; the first and 3rd graphs are from WFT and show a graph of actual temperature data; they are not estimates and do not need confidence levels.

The middle one is a comparison of Hansen's model estimate of temperature trend compared with actual temperature trend based on actual data; in that instance the confidence level is the actual data; which is why I am not confident about AGW science, Hansen or you.

I'll tell David you said hi.

Wood For Trees

http://tinyurl.com/4Bugsy

With sharp tools comes great responsibility... Please read the notes on things to beware of - and in particular on the problems with short, cherry-picked trends. Remember that the signals we are dealing with are very, very noisy, and it's easy to get misled - or worse, still to mislead others ... eh Mr Cox!

http://www.woodfortrees.org/

Q&A, good advice bubblebrain; now explain to the watching throng why and how the graphs are 'misleading', cherry-picked, etc, ad nauseum.

But, cohenite, there isn't a "watching throng".

There are just a few of us standing around scratching ourselves, waiting for you to stop calling people "bubblebrain" and convince me that I should take the word of a lawyer on the subject of climate science over those of scientists.

Then again, it's only OLO.

Poirot

Cox? he keeps massaging the cherries:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1979/to:1989/trend/plot/rss/from:1989/to:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/to:2009/trend

What a difference a year makes!

I think you've seen this before:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif

Q&A says:

“What a difference a year makes!”

Actually none; Q&A’s WFT graph confirms the point that the 1990’s is where the modern heat is; Q&A’s reduction of a year on the end points shows that dramatically with the over-shoot of the 90’s heat statistically indicated by the line gaps between the 80’s and the 2000’s so that the trend in those ‘decades’ now becomes slightly positive; the article graph isolates the 90’s heat and is correlated with real events. In any event only a nut would seriously argue that the post 2000 temperature trend is the same as the trend in the 1990’s.

Q&A’s link to Sks and the “escalator” is even more egregious.

At Watts there is a whole page devoted to this nonsense:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=Skeptical+science+temperature+escalator

What Sks has neglected is that statistical significance must be correlated with physical events and causes; its "escalator" is merely statistical showing off and is what AGW supporters do; the sceptics are only interested in real events and seeing if the data reflects those events; based on real events the escalator should look like this:

http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/09-realistc-escalator-in-global-temps.png

On the other hand, based on real events, that is, his comments here, this is what Q&A should look like to a confidence level of 95%:

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://rufiojones.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/goofy.gif&imgrefurl=http://rufiojones.wordpress.com/2011/06/09/cartoon-black-history-goofy/&h=700&w=612&sz=53&tbnid=UdJ2TUk5TgohrM:&tbnh=96&tbnw=84&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dpicture%2Bof%2Bgoofy%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=picture+of+goofy&usg=__Ye7K5zuFxGxrKC1BWLo08zD13Cw=&docid=u1kVCULDFcb4VM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=50eDUf-aGOfoiAf2s4FI&sqi=2&ved=0CDgQ9QEwAw&dur=35

Hahaha

A legend in your own mind Mr Cox

pffft

Morning cohenite,

I'll see your Goofy cartoon, and raise you this.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/14/condensed-monckton/

(I know which one is funnier - yuk,yuk :)

Christopher likes a good soup and is partial to sandwiches.

Tinned soup and sangers?

British cuisine at its best!