Then answer me this Poirot: you obviously do not accept what I paraphrased the scientists have said as written in the Working Group 1: The Physical Science Basis but do accept, presumably, what is stated within the Summary for Policymakers and its accompanying press releases. How then do you reconcile your interpretation of (catastrophic) global warming/climate change with your spinning/propaganda through the use of obfuscation through omission? You are well aware of what that phrase means, surely!

This is not limited to you personally; much of the whole field of climate change advocacy (not necessarily implying impropriety of the part of "climate change scientists" here, nor yourself) is built on obfuscation through omission. In other words it is not the "whole truth" (to paraphrase its courtroom use), it is propaganda designed not to inform but to persuade. You are not alone; the ABC media has done the same thing this last week with the NSW bushfires.

Probably, you are most likely just an interested player and this argument will mean little to you but when government-funded money is handed out to the ABC, climate advocates and others, then it is imperative that due diligence is followed - unfortunately, as the last few years have shown, this has not always been the case.

Furthermore, as there is talk behind the scenes about a royal commission into climate change science then, should it come about, it might be prudent for all players in receipt of government funding (not saying you are Poirot) not to continue to engage in obfuscation through omission, and to practice due diligence.

Hi Agronomist, I'm not sure about your research skills either. Here is the heading from the BBC article that Jennifer references "Australian bushfires fan global warming debate", clearly suggesting a link. Should we therefore treat your post on the basis "I get worried when people fail to deal accurately with source material."?

I have to disagree, Poirot.

>>Once again a timely reminder of the pointless proposition of "discussing" climate change on OLO<<

It is certainly pointless to expect anyone to U-turn their views on the topic, given the infinite plasticity of the statistics involved. Right now, either stance seems more responsive to one's views on the perfectibility of the human condition than to facts one can nail down with confidence.

Closer to religion than science, I would submit.

But that does not mean we should not continue to niggle and argue about it.

One day, we might actually get some solid material that is entirely separate from politics, economic and environmental wish-lists, gravy-train Qangos, column-starved journalists, rent-seeking industries, tenure-hungry academics and so on.

When it arrives, we need to be able to view it in the context of the mass of unbelief that presently exists on both sides of the debate.

N'est-ce pas?

Raredog,

"Furthermore, as there is talk behind the scenes about a royal commission into climate change science..."

Hmmm....yep, I expect they'll have a bit of a delve into Darwin's shonky ideas about evolution too.

...etc.

Ha ha. I admire your tenacity Poirot, reminds me of Monty Python's black knight - are you a university-educated science communicator by any chance? If I ran an advertising agency or was leader of a political party I would certainly employ you. Unfortunately you still come across as someone whose mind is closed to any alternate ideas, even if espoused by IPCC-based scientists themselves.

Also I doubt, if there should be a royal commission, they will be discussing Darwin's theory of evolution. They might, however, discuss whether or not there are any problems with the theory of anthropogenic global warming, and whether or not it is going to be catastrophic. But thanks for not referring to me as a "creationist" (albeit faintly); I was expecting "flat-earther"!

Personally I doubt there will be a royal commission (too many vested interests and innocent people involved) but the yet to be proposed but likely inquiry into union corruption may possibly open Pandora's Box in connection with, in part, catastrophic global warming. What's the connection? You'll just have to wait and see.

Thanks, it has been fun.

Agro says:

"I get worried when people fail to deal accurately with source material."

I bet he/she/other does because they would be tripping over Agro and the rest of the pro-AGW acolytes in the room of scientific inaccuracy.

As for no one saying the bushfires are due to AGW that is rich even by Agro's subterranean standards. Over at The NCTCS website there is a club for those people and groups who have been promulgating the alleged connection between the bushfires and AGW; they belong to a club; the BBC:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/10/bushfire-bastards-club-new-applications.html

Are you applying for membership Agro?