That's true Spindoc, the science of AGW is dead but it still jumps around like a crazed zombie; see, for instance the latest effort from Abrahams and Nutticelli from Skeptical Science, given prominent space at The Guardian. Their effort is critiqued here:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/skeptical-science-crap.html

If a mug like me can spot the gaping holes in AGW science what hope does it have.

The other side of the AGW coin to science is renewable energy and it looks as though the SCs in the coalition, notably Hunt and McFarlane are going to win the day and enforce the maintenance of the RET target of 20%; see:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/cabinet-rift-on-ret-hunt-firm-amid-scrapping-calls/story-e6frg6xf-1226799349909#

Apart from the fact that renewables don't work the sheer cost of this folly will be a major economic hindrance for some time.

Like a leech the blood-sucking AGW still has its fangs firmly stuck in the neck of Australia.

cohenite
Well the considered response is you are wrong.

1 The Antarctic ice sheet is melting, as I have pointed out above. Your link referred to an estimate using laser heights only, unfortunately that is not a good way to estimate ice volumes, because as the ice melts the weight on the land declines and the surface rises. A much better approach is to measure the gravitational pull of the ice using satellites as per the Grace system. This clearly shows a net ice loss for the whole Antarctic.

2 The so called hot spot argument only proves you are clutching at straws. The long term data is highly problematic because the earlier weather balloon data was gathered for the purpose of local weather forecasts and the instrumentation was not standardised. Modern satellite measurements are also problematic because of interference from other layers of the atmosphere, satellite decay, and instrument drift.

It gets worse because what we are trying to confirm is that the temperature at an altitude of around 10 to 12 kilometres has increased by around 0.15 deg C more than the surface over the last 40 odd years. It is hardly surprising that no one has been able to prove that this has indeed happened, but the lack of proof in no way indicates that it has not happened, only that we are unable to get sufficiently accurate data. Then our sceptical friends reverse engineer the argument by saying well if the hotspot is not there then it indicates that the humidity must not have risen which is I grant quite clever, but is actually just a straw-man argument. Humidity levels can be directly measured much more accurately than this clumsy method could ever hope to achieve.

Last but not least when the IPCC listed the fingerprints of GHGs in AR4 they were actually referring to the fact that at a much higher level in the atmosphere substantial cooling ( around 2 to 6 deg C) had occurred and this is good confirmation we understand how increased levels of GHGs affects the atmosphere.

Thanks for coming warmy and having a shot. Some more papers about Antarctic ice from the land, the WAP and sea-ice:

ftp://ftp.nerc-bas.ac.uk/pub/photo/PR-2012-09-Mulvaney/documents/nature11391_proof1.pdf

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/38/7/635.abstract

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5554/476.abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL032529/abstract

Could you also comment on this graph of sea temps around the PIG:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/pine_island_glacier_sea_temp.jpg

And this graph of sea ice anomalies:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

GRACE is a great concept but is plagued by IGA, Isostatic Glacial Adjustment. To the layman, IGA can be simply explained as when the ice increases it compacts so a radar beam from a satellite will read as though the ice is DECREASING when it is actually INCREASING.

GRACE has thrown up some other curly ones such as given high temperature readings when in fact the radar was calibrated to fall within the ice which was warmer than the air!

Anyway looking at the above papers using GRACE we have 3 measurement techniques; synthetic aperture radar, PALSAR, and GPS, all radar based systems; 2 of the 3 systems show markedly less ice loss from the Antarctic hot-spot, PIG, and the WAP generally, and one shows more; all this in a historical context of less ice loss today than in the recent geologic past.

Your argument about the 'absence' of a THS is very strange. If I read you right you are blaming imprecise measurements at that height. That maybe so but it is not me relying on those measurements but AGW, which theory predicts a THS.

Additionally you are saying the cooling in the Stratosphere is more reliable evidence for AGW when the Stratosphere is HIGHER than a THS!

Anyway the Stratosphere is NOT cooling:

ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tls/plots/rss_ts_channel_tls_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png

Since the Pinatubo eruption the Stratosphere has actually warmed!

It appears that Cohenite's life depends on AGW being proved to be a hoax or a complete mistake. Most normal people would adopt a wait and see position but not him or her.

I wonder why it's so important to him or her? Does he or she have shares in fossil fuels? Does he own a garage with multiple petrol bowsers? Is he a rev-head? Perhaps he's a man who can't live with uncertainty? Perhaps he can't live in dark surroundings and needs a light on all the time? Perhaps his ego thrives on dominating others, on ridiculing them? Perhaps he wanted to be important and never was?

I think Cohenite needs help to tone down his obvious stress, his extreme frustration with those who have an open mind or even dare to think that global warming could be a reality.

Be gentle with him please. People with black and white personalities are always on the edge and are easily damaged.

I thought the arrangement was you wouldn't talk to me David G and I wouldn't reply to your condescending, sneering tripe.

Or was that some other fool?

You can always tell the gravy train riders.

No scientific argument, just bland statements of claims already refuted, reference to authority, & attempted put down of those who show them up.

We could actually feel sorry for them, if they weren't so nasty. It must be hard to realise you bought a fraud, & built your future on quicksand. But hay fellers, we didn't make you do it, we just saw through the fraud, a hell of a lot earlier than you.