Thanks for confirming my argument Poirot.

Your scientific discussion tells us that well delivered spin wins elections.

SCIENCE? Come on lady.

"Your scientific discussion tells us that well delivered spin wins elections."
As is evidenced by Abbott winning the last election here?

But when will we begin to be sorry he won?

Between them Agro and Poirot rely on sks twice, the Guardian once, the NYT once and Agro manages to sneak in a doozy of a PRP. Let's consider the paper but first from the 1970s and the prevailing hysteria then of an imminent ice-age:

http://www.denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/30713

A critique of Agro's paper:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/25/the-cia-documents-the-global-cooling-research-of-the-1970s/

More importantly the emerging consensus, which began with Keenlyside [2008] now is that we are going into a cooling period:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/nature06921.html

http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/stadium-wave.pdf

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013GL057877/pdf

And what is the sun doing? Oh dear:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/04/october-2013-sunspots-largest-jump-in-solar-cycle-24-so-far/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/posts/Real-risk-of-a-Maunder-minimum-Little-Ice-Age-says-leading-scientist

Agro and Poirot, Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

Anthony, you are simply embarrassing yourself now.

Firstly, there was no reliance by me on SkepticalScience. They merely hosted a figure from the paper I was citing that I was interested in showing. Secondly, to counter the evidence of the peer reviewed literature, you use two newspaper reports and a report from the CIA? Yes really. The critique of the paper published in 2008 was a CIA report from 1974. Come on Mr Cox, you have to do better than that.

And for someone so quick to link to their own posts on political party blogs and to posts on the WUWT blog, I suggest you should be a little more circumspect about your criticism of blogs. At least the authors on SkepticalScience have the appropriate training to understand science, which is more than can be said of Anthony Cox, Anthony Watts or David Archibald – or indeed many of the other luminaries you consistently link to.

A case in point: Keenlyside et al. did not predict global cooling. Their conclusion was:

“Our results suggest that global surface temperature may not increase over the next decade, as natural climate variations in the North Atlantic and tropical Pacific temporarily offset the projected anthropogenic warming.”

That one is an own goal there Mr Cox.

Hi Agronomist.

That the Earth was heading towards a new Ice Age was taught to me by my Science teacher in my Science class in High school. This was also bandied about in contemporary news stories at the time with the usual bunch of Chicken Little's (who seem to revel in the idea of human catastrophe) recounting how bad it was going to be for the human race.

The ABC shop is still selling that DVD on Earth heading towards a new Ice Age. I would love to buy it, but at $45 bucks it is a bit much for me in my present financial state.

The idea that surfaced in the 80's that that we were running out of oil and food actually had an amusing aside. A lot of people with expensive V8 cars sold them off at a pittance because they believed that fuel prices would skyrocket so much that V8 cars would be expensive dinosaurs. It was heaven for the rev head brigade who seem to have more street smarts than the bourgeoisie. They bought up cheaply every V8 car they could get and it was not uncommon to see mullet heads driving Holden Statesman's. Anyone else remember that?

Today, I hear that people began selling shore front real estate for the same reason, although I also heard that Climate Change Commissioner Tim Flannery recently bought a waterside home. You don't think he started this rumour about global warming to get himself some cheap sea side land, do you?

Lastly, our own former Prime Minister John Howard has recently claimed that he was conned by climate change and he has declared himself a "climate change agnostic."

You are losing the debate.

Aww shucks, cohenite, sorry to link to a site that relies on empirical data from trained scientists.

Sorry for linking to an article by Muller himself.

Here's one from your fave site, WUWT.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/06/briggs-on-berkeleys-best-plus-my-thoughts-from-my-visit-there/

Nice guy, Anthony Watts is waxing lyrical on his support for Muller and the BEST team.

A few highlights:

".....Now contrast Rohde with Dr. Muller who has gone on record as saying that he disagrees with some of the methods seen in previous science related to the issue. We have what some would call a “warmist” and a “skeptic” both leading a project. When has that ever happened in Climate Science?"

"....Rohde hasn’t been very outspoken, which is why few people have heard of him. I met with him and I can say that Mann, Hansen, Jones, or Trenberth he isn’t. What struck me most about Rohde, besides his quiet demeanor, was the fact that is was he who came up with a method to deal with one of the greatest problems in the surface temperature record that skeptics have been discussing. His method, which I’ve been given in confidence and agreed not to discuss, gave me me one of those “Gee whiz, why didn’t I think of that?” moments. So, the fact that he was willing to look at the problem fresh, and come up with a solution that speaks to skeptical concerns, gives me greater confidence that he isn’t just another Hansen and Jones re-run."

"But here’s the thing: I have no certainty nor expectations in the results. Like them, I have no idea whether it will show more warming, about the same, no change, or cooling in the land surface temperature record they are analyzing. Neither do they, as they have not run the full data set, only small test runs on certain areas to evaluate the code. However, I can say that having examined the method, on the surface it seems to be a novel approach that handles many of the issues that have been raised."

Of course, that's "before" BEST came to a conclusion at odds with "skeptics".....before they disowned Muller.