Yes! Hasbeen, it is just like the bible, crap, but then they still believe it

To all those who decry the idea of global warming, please produce some peer-reviewed scientific evidence (so we know that it is not just a thought-bubble) without repeating already discredited non-scientific ideas.

In the meantime, let us go back to the theme of the article, which I take to be concern about more cases of skin cancer being diagnosed with the possibility that either the ozone hole or global warming, or both, are somehow implicated.

The article is really about skin cancers and the ozone hole and global warming are side issues which may have some relevance to the increasing number of skin cancers.

Onjab
60 years ago the climate wasn't cooling. It is now. That is why your weather is different now.

Brian
All your warming scientists agree the two most signifi ant factors indicative of warmi g are rising surface temps and reducing polar caps.

No one denies those two factors indicate climate change.

Artic ice has expanded by 50% this winter.
Antartic ice is expanding this summer.
The moonsoon trough has failled this summer because the tropical ocean, The Coral Sea and the Timor Sea have not reached the 26.5degrees necessary to support it. You will see very few cyclones form off east Australia this year.
Facts such as these are self evident and don't require peer review and are evidence of cooling not warming.

That should cheer you. Cooling will be much more devestating than warming.

imajulianutter

Peer-reviewed and not already discredited? Who are the authors and what academic journal are you referring to?

Brian
There is no peer reviewed literature. The facts speak for themselves.

If you want to dispute the facts then do so. Do not make your self look silly by dening facts. Or attempt some sort of negation by refering to peer reviewed OPINIONS. That is obsfacation.

Show me the peer reviewed literature linking human activity to climate change.
There is none.

Refute my facts and the implication the oceans are cooling. I've presented you the evidence that they are.

I am not one of the blind believers. I know what my eyes are showing me.ie increasing artic and antartic ice and that the momsoon has not come to Australia this year.

Give me a reason why these things have occurred in a time of supposed warming.

No peer review of that exists. I will accept a logical explanarion.

Go on give me something for me to consider.

nutter
My apologies for not getting back to you: I had reached my limit for the day

1. Go to a just closed blog called "Larvatus Prodeo" and look in the archive at the series called "Climate Clipping" - there are 91 of them and this will give you the information you asked me to provide.

2. I heard on ABC Radio this morning an interview with a David Jones from the Bureau of Meteorology during which he stated that 2013 was the hottest year Australia had experienced "by a fair margin". 10 of Australia’s hottest years have occurred since 1998. Does make me wonder about your cooling idea!

3. I am concerned that you are talking about peer reviewing without seeming to know much about it.
'Peer-review' is a process for ensuring accuracy and quality in scientific journals. Once an article is submitted, the editor sends a copy of it (minus author identification) to a number of eminent scientists knowledgeable in that field who review it. These referees check the article for a number of things: repeated tests producing the same result with a different experimenter; accuracy of all measurements; completeness of all data; accurate tables and graphs, and conclusions and statements which can be supported by the evidence in the article and in other articles cited. Referees report in three ways: accept, accept with further work in particular areas, or reject. Authors never know who the referees are and the referees don’t know who wrote the article. This is done for a number of reasons: to avoid any possibility of a conspiracy, to focus on the article and not on the author or authors, and because in a tight academic community many scientists know each other.
Many, if not most, articles are rejected: many of those deemed fit for publication are never published for lack of space in a journal.
This is a slow process of sifting out the best and is quite different from a shock-jock’s or editor’s thought bubble.