Thanks, James, for this timely reminder that the AGW fraud, despite being shown to have no scientific basis, continues to have support from crooks like Obama and Kerry.

In our own country, it is not enough to simply repeal the carbon tax.

We need an investigation into the corruption of science which has resulted in support from our once reputable scientific bodies for this baseless fraud.

The CSIRO has come out with statements supporting fraud, and we need to know how this happened, and have the perpetrators dealt with. A Royal Commission is urgently required.

Our BOM announced that 2013 was the hottest year on record. This was an outright lie to support the fraudulent assertion that the world is warming. It stopped warming 17 years ago, and it is time for action against the liars who make false assertions on climate and on human emissions.

Leo Lane. In support of your assertion of fraud and or malpractice by BOM, the recent letter by Jennifer Marohasy to the minister details exactly the assertions you make; definitely worth a read.

Seriously?

Don't we have enough home-grown anti-AGW crew without importing a Heartland Institute advisor?

For those who don't know the Heartland Institute is a discredited lobbying organisation directly funded by fossil fuel industry donations from the likes of the Koch brothers.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute

I did like this quote from the above link;

“Many climate sceptics seem to review scientific data and studies not as scientists but as attorneys, magnifying doubts and treating incomplete explanations as falsehoods rather than signs of progress towards the truth. ... The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters.”

Well that is our Anthony Cox/Cohenite to a tee!

But there is a notable difference between our uber-skeptics and theirs, when you see James Rust bang on about the 'new world order' and 'sovereignty being ceded to the UN' you know we are in fringe territory. One's politics is the best indicator of how one views the evidence for global warming and James' is plain for all to see.

Now how about an article from sceptic and fellow recipient of Heartland Institute funds Dr Roy Spencer, at least he is far closer to being a climate scientist than this bloke.

Thanks, Steele, for another science deficient and factless contribution.

It underlines your support of the AGW fraud despite having no reference to science showing any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.

Liars like Kerry and Obama must be great role models for you.

What about Michael Mann, the Climategate miscreant who sued a scientist for calling him a fraud.? He is in big trouble, now that he has lost the case. So liars do not always get away with it, however practiced they may be.

Thanks, Prompete for the reference. I will look it up.

Dear Leo Lane,

Okay dear chap I stated the Heartland Institute was a lobbying organisation, that it received funding from the fossil fuel industry, that donors included the infamous Koch brothers, and that James Rust is not a climate scientist.

All facts that you chose not to dispute in any fashion.

You on the other hand stated;

“What about Michael Mann, the Climategate miscreant who sued a scientist for calling him a fraud.? He is in big trouble, now that he has lost the case.”

When exactly did Michael Mann lose his case? The last I had heard was the judge throwing out a motion from the defendants to dismiss the case with the remark; “Viewing the alleged facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, as the court must on a motion to dismiss, a reasonable jury is likely to find the statement that Dr. Mann “molested and tortured data” was false, was published with knowledge of its falsity or reckless disregard of whether it was false or not, and is actionable as a matter of law irrespective of special harm.”

If you have any other evidence to put let us see it otherwise any reasonable person would see this contribution from you as the pinup poster of factless.

You really aren't very good at this are you. If you manage to stumble over a fact in the future I would be happy to address it but right now you have nothing.

On the US television program NewsHour screening afternoons on SBS, yesterday I watched the waters around Miami Beach flood the roads and overtax the existing pumping systems.
No storms, no run-off, no high tides, no broken mains - just a rising sea level.
Of course this has nothing to do with global warming because we all know global warming doesn't exist.
Could it be that the land is sinking? The intelligence of the deniers certainly is.

Monckton, forensically shown to be wrong; he does not show a grasp of how science operates, referring to old data when new data is available, cherry picking, and the information he provides is pretty well completely wrong. The “science” that Monckton provided (including from Lindzen) was forensically pulled apart.

http://www.realsceptic.com/climate-changes-but-facts-dont-debunking-monckton/

The clip shows comments made by Monckton, and then, what science actually says.

Here go again with Witless pontificating his stulidities once again.

Witless tell me the latest data on
DTR
OLR
Surface Temperatures
Artic and Antarctic ice expansions
Sea levels

I don't want your usual detail nitpicking, anything that relies on modelling, or limited unproven personal experience

Just address tbe above issues with actual data. They after all are the things climate terrorists used to claim as evidence of global warming.

If you cannot just say so and go sit in the dunces corner with turney, Gore, Flannery, tbe fools from Hadley, Rudd, Gillard, Shorten and now Kerry.

halduell, there are actual figures giving the current sea levels around Miami Beach, now and in the past. I won't tell you what they are, because researching them on the web will be a valuable exercise for you. It may help you shed some of that excessive credulity.

Dear Jon J,

Was just looking at some tide figures so I can help him out.

Here you go halduell. Just zoom into Florida. As you can see the changes are pretty moderate, around 2-3 mm per year. If you zoom out a touch you will see far more dramatic rises in places like Texas. The global picture throws up some significant rises and drops even between gauges close to each other.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.shtml

The overall trend is of course up as explained by our CSIRO.
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

The link above has some great little time lapse sequences.

Enjoy.

Deniers talk about fraud, its something that Monckton raised a number of times in the clip I give a reference to below. Monckton raised a particular case; but, in the end the tables were turned on the person pressing the charges post date of clip.

Another case was pushed in a New Zealand court suggesting fraud in relation to increase in temperature. The scientist involved was taken to court. The exercise back fired on the deniers:
" After an appeal that was withdrawn at the last minute, late last year the NZCSET was ordered to pay NIWA NZ$89,000 in costs from the original case, plus further costs from the appeal." From:

http://theconversation.com/an-insiders-story-of-the-global-attack-on-climate-science-21972

There are absolute facts about what is happening:
.The ice sheet in the Arctic region has been melting, in 2012 there had been 80% loss of volume compared to when there had been full cover.
.Glaciers are melting at unprecedented rates
.CO2 is now about 400 ppm as measured at Hawaii.
.Acidification is happening in oceans.

Just saying these matters are wrong doesn't alter the fact that these things are happening. Its for scientists to sort out by continuing to collect data and ask questions as scientific method requires.

Ask yourself something not relating to climate science at all; do you believe in Higgs Boson? Some quite new science. Being something very new, there are a couple of peer reviewed papers. It is impossible to know through commonsense whether Higgs Boson is right. Just like we need to accept the notion of atoms electrons etc. The non scientist has to believe what the scientists are saying.
With climate science there are thousands of peer reviewed papers; it is the science that is reviewed not the scientists.

Steele, you are right, you did have a fact in your post. I did not acknowledge it because it was not relevant.
I did not go to the Court record in the Mann case, I relied on an article:

“The fact Mann refused to disclose his ‘hockey stick’ graph metadata in the British Columbia Supreme Court, as he is required to do under Canadian civil rules of procedure, constituted a fatal omission to comply, rendering his lawsuit unwinnable. As such, Dr Ball, by default, has substantiated his now famous assertion that Mann belongs "in the state pen, not Penn. State." In short, Mann failed to show he did not fake his tree ring proxy data for the past 1,000 years, so Ball’s assessment stands as fair comment. Moreover, many hundreds of papers in the field of paleoclimate temperature reconstructions that cite Mann’s work are likewise tainted, heaping more misery on the discredited UN’s Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) which has a knack of relying on such sub prime science.

Without fear of his civil legal redress, we may now refer to Mann for what he is: a climate criminal, a fraudster.”
http://www.principia-scientific.org/michael-mann-faces-bankruptcy-as-his-courtroom-climate-capers-collapse.html

Do you ever intend to say anything relevant to why you support the AGW fraud in the absence of any science to justify your position? Try to understand that the truth from someone supported by the Heartland Institute is still the truth. You seem to have trouble with the basic concept that if there is no justification for your assertion, you should reconsider it.

Your resentment of the Heartland Institute for promotion of the truth was really not worth raising.Your support of liars like Obama and Kerry tends to further discredit you.

Dear Leo Lane,

Come on mate even though the President did flag problems with Kyoto do you really want to call him a liar?

These are his words;

“The issue of climate change respects no border. Its effects cannot be reined in by an army nor advanced by any ideology. Climate change, with its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must be addressed by the world.”

“The Kyoto Protocol was fatally flawed in fundamental ways. But the process used to bring nations together to discuss our joint response to climate change is an important one. That is why I am today committing the United States of America to work within the United Nations framework and elsewhere to develop with our friends and allies and nations throughout the world an effective and science-based response to the issue of global warming.”

… “we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. It has risen by .6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. There was a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s. And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today.”

I thought this was a sound, science based position to take. Why don't you?

Steele asks, “Why don’t you?” I don’t, because my thinking process does not suffer the disability of Steele’s, someone who supports a blatant frud..
Obama said the planet is warming. Warming stopped 17 years ago. Even the lying fraud backers admit to it being “paused”. Obama said it is warming faster than anyone thought it would ten years ago.A clumsy, inexcusable lie

He also said about human contribution: "The overwhelming judgment of science — of chemistry and physics and millions of measurements — has put all that (doubt) to rest."

That is a baseless inelegant and unforgiveable lie

Yes, Steele, I call Obama a liar, but being a fraud backer yourself, you would not succumb to irrefutable evidence, and acknowledge him to be a liar.

You also continue to avoid the issue of any justification for your support of the AGW fraud. Can you think of any? It may be as difficult to find as science demonstrating any measurable effect of human emissions on climate

Yup. It's like I was thinking as I watched that program with water pouring over the roads - That's not a rising sea. That's what happens when so many happy fish rush towards shore looking to share their news:
Everything is hunky dory down in the deep.
Fishing as usual.
Catch us if you can find us, you nutters.

The Higgs Boson finding has made me realize that we are taken for a ride by scientists.
We are told that "atoms" exist, they are in everything.
I wonder whether any of the astute posters on this site have ever seen an atom? Have they ever touched an atom? What do atoms sound like?
They are in constant movement the scientists tell us. The science to "discover" these supposed things has created a multi billion dollar industry world wide. The structure of "atoms" that we can't see, is meant to change and lots of creative names are given to the different changed non existent bits. Some are called "oxygen", others are called "hydrogen". The one that's really causing lots of havoc at present is "carbon dioxide", it is a particularly useful one because lots of revenue is going to scientists who say that "carbon dioxide" does certain things, while others are given huge donations to say that the non-existent "carbon dioxide" doesn't do the things that are said. One such group is called Heartlands, they get huge donations from fossil fuel industry to say that "carbon dioxide", something that doesn't exist, doesn't do the things that those pesky scientists say.

It really is sad for some people, who don't belong to the Science fraternity or get paid like many Heartland employees do because they are giving up their free time to argue about something that doesn't exist.

How do I know that atoms don't exist; it's through faith, and I have a right to that opinion. "Atoms" are not meant to be solid they are broken down into smaller bits with space between those bits. Solid things like wood or metal are meant to be made up of these fraudulently named "atoms". Solid bits of matter are made up of small particles that have spaces between them, scientists must think we are dumb to believe that.

I bet that 99% of people have not seen an "atom", so not having seen them how can they say 'atoms" exist, remember its a huge industry.

In addition:
Just to prove my point further in recent years those pesky scientists have "discovered" things called "chromosomes"; once again being very smart as "chromosomes" can't be seen, they have broken the "chromosome " up further calling the smaller parts "genes", and its developed into a nice little income earner. They show "chromosomes" as little rectangles placed next to one another. That's fraud really as I can go to any super market and buy items with bar charts and get those free; yet, scientists are being paid to provide something we can get free.

To ant,

I see you're having a bit of fun here. That's good. All folks need to lighten up a bit with this AGW stuff and humour is good for everyone.

But let me tell you that writing humour is one of the hardest things to write. My free advice: practice some more before going public next time. The above is not very funny or witty in my opinion. Never mind.

To the point of your muse, people believe in atoms and nuclear theory (without actually seeing atoms) because the theory can be understood and explained. The theory can be proven in predictable, reproducible and observable experiments and tests. So called 'splitting the atom' results in big bangs and can produce safe, predictable energy, reliably and observably. So people accept the theory.

That's the difference between nuclear science and the climate science conjecture regarding carbon dioxide. Climate scientists cannot produce any reproducible and consistently observable experiments or tests without some form of obfuscation and extrapolation of data - which becomes contentious. So I remain unconvinced that they really know what they're doing. For me the science is not settled, but I continue to evaluate with interest and an open mind.

And BTW ant, carbon dioxide is not an atom, it's a molecule. True story. Go check it out.

To imajulianutter,

Good list and I too am waiting for the replies.

I have one more item to add to your list of requested data from the scientists - a graph showing global mean sea level pressure anomalies for the same periods they endlessly show us temperature: 1890 to present.

I look for it, but I can't find this information presented in complete simple formats. Of course the data are there, but not in a digestible form.

Cheers all.

There's surely no doubt whatsoever, we are experiencing climate change!
The argument is, is, any of it down to human activity, and the greenhouse effect, or just due to ever increasing solar radiation?
Lets hope it is the former, because we can do something about man made climate change, and if we are rational, make lots of money, and seriously expand our economies and economic opportunities, into the bargain!
Does anyone seriously believe that we'd lose out replacing coal fired power stations with cheaper than coal, carbon free thorium ones?
Or utilizing our currently wasted waste, to convert it into methane, and then use that scrubbed methane to power ceramic cells, which in turn powers our homes or high rise building, with virtually free power, along with free hot water!
What's wrong with that?
I mean, if climate change is just the result of increased solar radiation, then surely we will be running our air conditioners day and night, if we can actually afford to!
And given virtually every conventional motor vehicle is running on algae, albeit very old and needing much processing/refining before we can use it, what could possibly wrong with growing algae, some of which are up to 60% oil, and naturally produce ready to use diesel, or jet fuel!
Moreover, algae absorb 2.5 times their own body weight in atmospheric carbon, and under optimized conditions, literally double that size and absorption capacity every 24 hours.
Extracting the ready to use as is bio fuel, is virtual child's play and as simple as filtering out some of the algae product, sun drying it, then extracting the ready to use as is products, by a rudimentary crushing method.
One grower, a foreign company, is on the public record saying, given scales of economy, they could provide the finished product, inclusive of fuel excise, for as little as 44 cents a litre!
Does anyone except the fossil fuel industry, have a problem with that?
The ex crush material, may by useful as fodder, or as feed stock for an ethanol plant(s).
Rhrosty.

Hi Leo, it appears both you and Steele are wrong about Mann's lawsuit. Steele, because he referred to the wrong lawsuit, and you because you relied on bad information. According to WUWT, I think an indisputably good source when it criticises arguments which support a skeptical interpretation, Ball confirms that it is a procedural hiccup for Mann, but the case is still ongoing http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/22/michael-manns-legal-case-caught-in-a-quote-fabrication-fib.

Steele was referring to Mann's other case, which is against Mark Steyn. Steyn tried to have it thrown out as an abuse of process, and the judge refused because he said there was an arguable case.

I'd be surprised if Mann eventually wins both cases. It seems he is engaging in legal harassment of people who call him for his questionable statistical methods, and failure to reveal relevant information - such as the fact that he dropped recent proxy data and substituted instrumental data because the proxy data started to show cooling. In my view this substitution is fraudulent, as suggested by the reference to it by his colleagues as "Mike's nature trick".

But perhaps Steyn has gone too far in accusing him of torturing data, when the charge perhaps should have been gross incompetence instead. Certainly bristlecone rings are not a suitable proxy, and using one solitary tree to represent the whole of the southern hemisphere is ridiculous, apart from his issues with the algorithms he used in analysing the data.

Anyway, court cases don't prove science, observations and experiments do.

One of the good things of the cases is that the court-based discovery process should give us access to a lot of information which will give a better view as to how he went about his work.

Let's see.

DTR has decreased over the last 50 years. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00032.1

Surface temperatures over the last decade are higher than they have ever been in the measurement record http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

Arctic sea ice has declined even in February https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Antarctic sea ice has increased slightly in extent http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/seaice/characteristics/difference.html but has decreased in volume http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120010403.pdf

OLR is highly variable and subject to interference by clouds and other factors, but there has been a small decline in the last decade http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD017997/abstract

Sea level is still increasing http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html

I think that has addressed all the topics with data.

Hi voxUnius
It was my attempt at humour, the science is well and truly in about the structure of molecules. Fraud has been mentioned so often on articles about about climate change and much misinformation has also been provided, so I tried to package up the arguments about climate science in a different way. By the way, I realize that the correct term is molecule, and that when writing about chromosomes that it is the gene that is a blue print for whatever life form. I sent the same piece off elsewhere earlier today and immediately under it wrote about molecules. Just pointing out some of the misinformation we receive from deniers and they keep providing the same information after being corrected.
I watched this clip last night where Monckton's arguments are forensically pulled apart:

http://www.realsceptic.com/climate-changes-but-facts-dont-debunking-monckton/21-monckton-has-published-in-the-peer-reviewed-literature/

This is the whole clip which takes about 2 hours:

http://www.realsceptic.com/climate-changes-but-facts-dont-debunking-monckton/

Agronomist,

just a few questions.

'DTR has decreased over the last 50 years.' What are the data showing over the past 17 years?

'Surface temperatures over the last decade are higher than they have ever been in the measurement record.' Really, but does the current data show they are still rising?

'Arctic sea ice has declined even in February.' As compared to what period?

'Antarctic sea ice has increased slightly in extent...but has decreased in volume.'
What you don't quote from the report is much more significant and shows you being a tad deceptive.
'Sea ice thickness exhibits a small negative trend while area increases in the summer and fall balanced losses in thickness
leading to small overall volume changes.' (Increases.)

Just to remind you Antarctic ice accounts for 90% of the worlds ice cover.

'OLR is highly variable and subject to interference by clouds and other factors, but there has been a small decline in the last decade.'

Fine but is Feb 2014 data showing an increase or decrease? I think the data you quote from June 2011 doesn't reflect the past 3 years. Another of your statistical deceptions. Your quote does not cover the last decade.

'Sea level is still increasing.'
The article says the way measurements were taken had changed and that part of the report was based on all missions now using 'the GOT4.8 tide model'.

Geez Agronomist that was so easy. Do better next time.

And yet, there they were standing ankle deep in the sea water coming in the out sluices.
Geez, Nutter, that was so easy.
Rhosty has it about right. The world's climate is changing, even if the 'why' of that is little understood.
This argument is one of my favourites on OLO. Nobody knows, so we all get up each others noses. So mature. So learned.
Meanwhile, how to explain to someone with wet feet that their feet are not wet at all, but merely subject to a statistical anomoly?

Hi halduell

Who's sluices? Where are people walking around ankle deep? Is it uniform worldwide and if not why not?

You don't get up my nose at all. But have the questions I asked of Agronomist, which you have avoided, gotten up your nose?

Chris Flannery doesn't believe you. He bought an estuarine property and he isn't ankle deep, although I'd like to examine the depth of his integrity.

'Geez, Nutter, that was so easy.'
Two points; I guess some of us are born to lead and others to copy.
And it is if you don't address the issues. So what about addressing Agronomist deceptions and answering the questions I asked.

I live on a yacht so my feet are never ankle deep and if the were to be then I'd simply turn on my bilge pump.

btw I too believe the climate is changing.

imajulianutter,

Your answers in order.

Why should we be interested in the DTR of the last 17 years? Why not the last 18 years? Or the last 23 years? What is so special about 17 years? You could read the research paper I linked to find the values for any specific period.

It is cooler today than it was yesterday if that is what you mean?

Arctic sea ice measured in February has declined by 3% per decade since 1979.

Why are you interested cherry picking the OLR for February 2014? It is higher than June 2011, but lower than May 2011.

"These changes make a noticeable difference to the shape (but not the overall trend) of the GMSL curves. They make little difference to regional patterns."

Well that was pretty easy. You really need to cherry pick better next time.

imajulianutter

Agronomist was right when he stated that the Arctic ice was down in February 2014, very easy to use Mr Google to find that out. I have been following whats been occurring in the Arctic for several months on a particular site, here is a site i discovered tonight that you might like to go to:

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

The reference works, I'm not sure why it doesn't come up as a hyperlink

A quote from the National Snow & Ice Data Centre " Arctic sea ice extent in February 2014 averaged 14.44 million square kilometers (5.58 million square miles). This is the fourth lowest February ice extent in the satellite data record, and is 910,000 square kilometers (350,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average. The lowest February in the satellite record occurred in 2005.

A further quote: " ...Barens Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk, helping to keep the Arctic ice extent two standard deviations below the 1981 to 2010 average...."

There has been a decline in ice sheet cover since 1978 shown in the same article.

Details from an official site, but a denier provides different data:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/05/cryosat-shows-arctic-sea-ice-volume-up-50-from-last-year/

A few sites have disputed the veracity of the claims made by Watts, one being:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Anthony_Watts_blog.ht

Lol!...imajulianutter,

This thread is ankle deep.

What was that you said about turning on your bilge pump?

(It's time:)

Instead of anthroprogenic climate change through CO2, the clip below suggests that climate change is being used as a weapon of war through geo-engineering. The ultimate conspiracy theory I guess; that many people would believe after seeing a film clip or a presentation. Its a new way to explain unprecedented weather.

http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/

Australia has a station at Cape Grim that measures air quality, there is also a station at Hawaii and I understand there are a number of other air quality measuring stations. So any deviation from the normal air quality would be picked up. It's a good conspiracy theory that promotes the view man is causing climate change.

I am aware though that geo-engineering has been discussed in relation to bacteria being placed in areas where the release of methane and methane hydrates is being voided at dangerous levels. A particular type of bacteria breaks down methane to something less dangerous. But I stress there is only talk about that on a blog, rather than action.

The people peddling the view that geo-engineering is happening are not telling lies, it's something they believe to be the case; and so, are expressing what they believe. The word "fraud" has been bandied about a lot, that's why I chose to write that silly bit about "atoms".

Yesterday, I was listening to the radio and Professor Krauss was saying that they are within a brief moment in picking up when the Universe was born. None of us really can know whether that is true, it will be for scientists to forensically pull apart Professor Krauss's view, a hugely respected scientist believes to be the case at this point. That is how science works, Professor Krauss will also be continuing to ask questions about his hypothesis. There will not be any controversy about this as his research is not seen to impact on the fossil fuel industry.
Climate change is happening.

Dear GrahamY,

I did indeed think Leo Lane was referring to Mann's case against Rand Simberg but although Simberg holds degrees in Engineering and Mathematics I'm not sure he can be labelled a scientist.

As to the story Leo Lane posted you are entirely correct it was wrong, something Steven McIntyre from climateorg.com pointed out the day after it was posted;

“I checked with Tim Ball and the Ball lawsuit has not been dismissed. They have outstanding discovery requests, but to go from mere delay to succeed in a motion for dismissal is a large step and one that has not been taken.”

Dear Leo Lane,

So mate the one and only fact you have sought to put here is completely in-factual. Ouch. Now that is just too good. As I said you really aren't very good at this are you.

Aw, now I'm feeling a tad sorry for you. Tell you what, stop using the term 'terrorists' and I will never mention this again.

Oh as to 'Presidential lying' the words I quoted in my post were actually form George W Bush, so is he to be deemed a liar and a fraudster?

Artic and Antarctic ice expansions:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAMN3a6u91M (thanks Poirot for this link from threads past))

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-antarctic-ice.html The extent of ice is not a pointer to ice volume.

Sea level rise will not occur even if Antarctica melted completely (prove this with ice in a glass of water filled to the brim) It is the melting of northern continental ice sheets that will cause this together with thermal expansion of water.

Whatever, IJN has retreated to "I too believe the climate is changing.", making all the argument here just deck coits, while not accepting the best hypothesis we have for the reason.

So the questions are, IJN,

1)Is the change normal? Most reasonable people would concur that the rate of climate change is currently abnormal and begs a reason:

http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004/Marcott_Global%20Temperature%20Reconstructed.pdf and

2) What should we do about climate change? The best working hypothesis we have as reason for its cause is the place to start. Both the rate of climate change and its trajectory are of concern. Can humanity adjust to both the rate of change and to the various scenarios projected? Here's a summary of the position (that won't hyperlink) https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5NgIqKD_aX4Y3Y0dG9pdDFEUGc/edit?pli=1

This works and is better

https://docs.google.com/viewer?pid=explorer&srcid=0B5NgIqKD_aX4Y3Y0dG9pdDFEUGc&docid=e73beb68456ab5a310eaa280ad0a0a3b%7C67a652d697b3744513d2e5804dd5800c&a=bi&pagenumber=1&w=800

Just checking back on OLO and, oops, I meant Arctic ice two posts back. Antarctica completely melting would be a cataclysm!

People might suggest that with all the snow that has fallen in weird places in the USA that shows that warming is not happening. But we have countervailing weather in other parts of the planet; Australia, Arctic region, Scandinavia etc. So while we have experienced extreme weather the aggregate of temperature world wide will in most likelihood continue to show some warming.

Luciferase said " The extent of ice is not a pointer to ice volume."
Very true from what I have read the structure of ice is what is important. There was a larger ice sheet in 2013 compared to 2012. But scientists talked about how the ice was more friable and the ice sheet is much thinner and liable to break up. Unexpected fissures were noticed in the ice sheet in 2013. I have seen a photo on Facebook of the Arctic ice sheet in 2013 showing fractures, I can't locate the same photo but here is another which shows the same but does not show the thinness of the ice. The photo I had seen previously had a blue tnge an indication of the lack of thickness of the ice.

http://www.messagetoeagle.com/crackarticice.php#.Uy582fmSw1I

Yet to see you contribute that article I challenged you to write.

I would not turn on my bilge pump on in here. It would clog up with c..p.

Argonomist and haudell

All these issues have been covered I depth on previous threads. Ask Witless.
Key to many of them was information, current and referenced, provided by Cohenite.

Without exception you warming terrorists were unable to disprove that data. Ask Witless.

I can plow through those threads if I must but it will be time consuming and probably won't shake your zealot faith in warming. So it would be pointless.

Agro you did not address the selective use of data thats distorted todays picture of climate change. Until you do you lack any credibility and your position looks silly.

Cheers kiddies.

ta.As

Steele, you really are a mess. You have still failed to supply any science to justify your fraud backing. Did it slip your clapped-out mind, again?

The words you represented as Obama’s, and now say are Bush’s, you said are true. I posted the words that Obama actually said, which were lies. Great own goal, Steele, you really outsmarted yourself. One of the few people that you are able to outsmart.

Thanks for your comment Graham Y, I acknowledge the problem with the article I quoted, in that it assumes that Mann will continue his breach of the rules until his action is struck out. That may or may not happen. Mann may seek leave to comply out of time, which he will no doubt be granted, but then he must produce the material which he appears desperate not to disclose.

If he does not produce it, he will be struck out, if he does produce it, his shoddy work will be before the Court for examination. Either way, we can expect the result which the article asserts, but the article is wrong in proclaiming it in the present circumstances. Realistically, things look good for Ball.

Leo

Witless will say he unwittingly quoted the wrong person. He will claim his historical analogies don't need to be accurate.

That's his usual form.

Now, now nutter. You are on record as admitting that climate change is real. A bit late to start hustling backwards now.
"btw I too believe the climate is changing."
Posted by imajulianutter, Saturday, 22 March 2014 7:11:49 PM

Halduell, climate change is real, by the OED definition of the words “climate” and “change”, not by the weasel worded, falsehood based definition of the phrase “climate change” by the crooks at the IPCC, which is baseless fantasy.

Dear Leo Lane,

You are good fun my friend.

You are simply too cunning for the snares of this poor hunter so therefore I will have to ask you again directly; was President Bush a liar and a fraudster for saying what he did about global warming?

Please note your answer does not require you to contemplate any facts whatsoever, which is comforting given your previous form, but only your opinion.

Please understand this point, you might be a great bloke in real life but your continuous use of the words 'crook', 'fraudster', 'liar' etc in connection of those who quite reasonably accept the science around climate change is unfair, derogatory, malicious, demeaning, baseless and spiteful. As you have not quite been relegated just yet to fringe dweller status like nutter those words have import and will elicit a response from me even if it just a little nip at the heels.

Dear halduell,

Given the earlier posts I had thought nutter was calling ant 'witless' but I now think on this occasion he seems to be referring to me. The best course of action is probably to put a dollar in his cup and slide on past.

'nutter: "All these issues have been covered I depth on previous threads......Key to many of them was information, current and referenced, provided by Cohenite."

Is that an appeal to cohenite's "authority"? Think for yourself, 'nutter. At least cohenite opines on research, while you name call, belch slogans, and run away with an appeal to read others.

You say the climate is changing, but why is the current rate of global warming unprecedented over the history of civilization and well beyond. Do you hold knowledge science has not yet considered?

"Cheers kiddies", indeed.

Prompete, at the beginning of the thread gives Jennifer Marohasy as a reference suggesting that "fraud" is taking place in the Bureau of Meteorogy. To begin with, Ms Marohasy operates a blog, a blog carries an individual's views that have not necessarily been tested. We all know that newspapers get things wrong; many blogs are no different.

Blogs in science have some status when they refer to science that has been completed and readily accepted. I tried to illustrate the point with nonsense about molecules and "atoms". Who is going to dispute what scientists come up with through the use of electron microscopes in observing atoms that other scientists can replicate the same data. To spell it out further, it was a metaphor for what is happening at present.

Climate scientists to illustrate their point, often provide animations using actual data. An example is showing the loss of sheet ice in the Arctic over several years. Other scientists using the same data can create the same animation, using data from satellites.
Nothing to do with computer models that endeavour to show what trends are going to occur in the future; but using data from the past.

Wrong conclusions can arise when not using the full data:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlY2_-8RAS0

@ SteeleRedux, Sunday, 23 March 2014 10:46:24 PM
Damn! And here I was thinking he was referring to me.
But I do agree with your advice about putting a dollar in his cup and continuing on our way. It (the dollar) might help him service his bilge pumps.

imajulianutter wrote: “All these issues have been covered I depth on previous threads. Ask Witless.
Key to many of them was information, current and referenced, provided by Cohenite.”

This would of course be the same cohenite that proved themselves unable to add up? http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16086#279616

The same cohenite that is unable to read a graph http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16086#279460

The same cohenite that fails to understand simple mathematical operations http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15064#260250

The same cohenite that reproduces an obviously fraudulent graph from Anthony Watts http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14784

The same cohenite that doesn’t know the difference between journals that are peer-reviewed and those that are not http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14179

The same cohenite who understands nothing of statistics and nothing of the scientific publication process http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14089#243927

Well, I am pleased you go for quality in the information you use.

Haudell

the climate is changing. The data indicates cooling, not warming. Waiting to see the extent and height of your backflip. Guaranteed it will be outstanding. No not you you haven't yet reached the heights of witlessness as the one and only Witless.

Witless,

do I have to remind you of your unwitting admission of your own witlessness? How could you forget such stupidity? I guess you'll just have to suck it up or change your nick name, since your modus is now continually up for exposure ... and once again reinforced in this thread.

Luciferase

Ah no... I simply credited Cohenite for supplying information current and referenced, which even you acknowledge as research. Read it again. You will see the authority was the referenced information and not the realist and informative cohenite.

If you would check you will see scientists are now considering actual data that challenges all the articles of faith you terrorists so doggedly hang onto. Hence my questions ... which none of you here have fully addressed with or without deception.

Look I understand how you fellows have difficulty with simple comprehension but really trying to verbal me in such a purile manner is really very silly.

Steele, I hope that you will appreciate the treatment you have received on this site. You complain about the use of the terms “crooks” and “liars”, but we are dealing with a cynical and substantial fraud, and its origin and support, you have to realise, emanate from crooks and liars, and, after inception, from the ignorant and dishonest.

There is a benevolent attitude towards you here, because no one has called you a crook or a liar. Having observed the ridiculous games you play, and your stubborn refusal to put forward any attempt to justify your fraud backing, you have been given the status of witless, which differentiates you from liars and crooks, whose behaviour, in fraud backing, has so much in common with your own.

You have contributed little to the discussion, but you are at least an object lesson in one type of mentality which supports fraud. You have given us the template of how a witless fraud backer operates.

Ant, Jennifer Marohasy sets out facts. Why don’t you try it, instead of shooting from the hip and being totally wrong. You appear to know nothing about her column. Click on the link below and learn

http://www.mythandthemurray.org/no-increase-in-hot-days-at-bathurst-or-the-misguided-politics-of-attributing-bushfires-to-global-warming/

Mrohasy is an accomplished scientist and very transparent in her presentation. Let us know what you think when you have an idea of your topic. Your post demonstrates that you had no idea when you wrote it

Dear Leo Lane,

You had called for a contest of facts but the only one you offered this thread was about as factually incorrect as it possibly could be. You stand there with your pants around your ankles yet you seem to want us to take you seriously, it is a big ask my friend.

However you do need to temper the shrillness just a touch, for instance you have used the word 'fraud' or a derivative about 17 times just in this thread alone. You may just end up with a cup on a street corner too.

This site should be about opinion and discussion but you, nutter, and JKJ amongst others just continually go for the jugular. The thread linked below was one of the most unedifying I have seen in a long while on OLO.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16076&page=0

In short measure you blokes systematically hounded the author from the discussion section of his own article. It was disgraceful.

Now in discussing AGW I made a conscious decision to steer away from the word 'denier' or 'denialist'. I feel the history of the words makes their use fraught, I prefer anti-AGW. But you lot keep banging on with liar, terrorist, fraud backer, corrupt etc. Well I'm afraid I am not the type to turn the other cheek nor see bullying of others go unanswered. If you want me to change my approach then change yours.

Finally Jennifer Marohasy is not a climate scientist but rather a biologist as is Tim Flannery and in some things they are in lock step. These are her words;

“I agree with Professor Flannery that we need to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. I support the call for the development of solar, wind and even nuclear power.”

Why don't you?

imajulianutter, it is really unscientific to claim that cooling is happening. It can only be regarded as a hypothesis; there is little data to show that there is cooling.
The lack of sunspot activity should have the climate cooling, but warming is happening.
The famous Vostoc graph of CO2 in the atmosphere shows that cyclically we should be going into a cooling phase, but that's my interpretation of all the wiggles and scribbles, the wiggles go up to a high right at the end of the graph, from about 270 ppm to a fraction under 400 ppm. Remember, it has been since the Industrial Revolution that the trend has been a heating one.

Those pushing for cooling do not have a time frame they can show cooling is taking place, full stop.

Deniers argue that during the medieval period that it was warmer than it is today, the way this is derived is through lack of understanding of the data, or actually misusing data.
Temperatures have been going up. For example, if 0 is the base, and a measure has been going up 2 points; and then later, continues at 1 point, the measure whatever it is still going up. Nought is the base and one is an increase on that. That's the principle of what has been happening I believe.
Deniers use 1997 or 1998 as showing that warming has not continued, the data says otherwise.

Leo, Jennifer Marohasy, is not a climate scientist; she has a blog, fair enough, but as stated blogs do not always offer reliable information. In her blog she quotes a letter she wrote to Hunt in relation to how temperature is measured by BOM. Questioning is a usual feature in science!!
BOM has been using temperature readings since 1910, the whole argument about climate change on the planet does not rely on whether temperature was measured before 1910 or not in Australia.

Leo are you going to call scientists who study oceans frauds? They tell us about acidification, oceans heating, and movement of fish and other species caused by temperature change.
What about Biologists who have noticed changes in species moving to higher environments, they are suggesting it could be due to climate change, are they frauds?
Scientists who interpret information from satellites, are they frauds?
What about the scientists involved with measuring changes in glaciers and ice sheets,frauds?
Your problem is that when you suggest climate scientists are frauds; you are covering quite a number of specialties. Your conspiracy theory doesn't hold together very well, I'm afraid.

Geez, are my ears burning.

Says you Agro; as I say you're an expert on Ipse Dixit. And when you do ham-fistedly attempt some scientific comment you can't tell one hole from another:

DTR has decreased over the last 50 years. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00032.1

A Karoly paper! The mirth! Wrong:

http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2014/01/07/the-hottest-year-but-not-due-to-greenhouse-warming/

Min and max are travelling in different rates, if not directions; Karoly's computer modelling does some fine Mann-like work on the data.

cohenite, where is your peer reviewed evidence. Meteorologists in the USA do not need to have a professional qualification.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts

It takes several years to gain a PhD in any professional area. There are thousands of papers written and peer reviewed by climate scientists, a few papers written by deniers do not dent the mainstream climate scientists papers.

It is interesting that you use data from Meteorologists from the USA to try and prove your point; yet, you debunk the Australian Meteorologists. Not very convincing I'm afraid.

The references below refer to peer reviewed science.

http://www.realsceptic.com/climate-changes-but-facts-dont-debunking-monckton/04-climate-science-is-done-by-consensus/

http://www.realsceptic.com/climate-changes-but-facts-dont-debunking-monckton/21-monckton-has-published-in-the-peer-reviewed-literature/

You are joking cohenite aren't you?

Are you seriously comparing the results of scientific studies published by an experienced climate scientist in the peer reviewed literature with the musings of a retired school teacher on a self-published blog?

You have to do better than that.

But I see it gets better than that, because Ken fits a polynomial equation to his numbers. Now where have we seen amateurs do that before?

"DTR has decreased over the last 50 years"
On venus the DTR is zero, is that what we're aiming for?

I come back to 'nutter, and ask him why it is OK to assume Antarctic ice volume is increasing: "'Sea ice thickness exhibits a small negative trend while area increases in the summer and fall balanced losses in thickness leading to small overall volume changes.' (Increases.)

His brackets. The NASA IceBridge project is actually trying to determine nett volume loss/gain but 'nutter seems to again have prescience that he's are not sharing with the scientific community.

On the other hand, it is a fact that a vastly larger ice area has been lost in the Arctic than is gained, on balance, in the Antarctic, a point he studiously ignores while calling all and sundry deceivers.

Tink! (the sound of my penny in his hat)

Agro, interpret the Karoly conclusions about DTR for us, will you.

In the meantime all Ken did was take BOM Australian maximum and minimum data and apply a 12 month smoothing to the data and then a second order poly for curve fitting; he did use data only from 1978 whereas Karoly uses 1951-2005 Global data.

Torak and some buddies found a decreasing DTR for Australia for the period 1951-1992:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016980959400070T

So Ken's straightforward analysis is the only one which is up to date, not global and doesn't rely on model comparisons.

It's a bit like AGW; lots of really, really smart guys on multi-million dollar computers finding the world is going to blow up and making lots of money while some little guy with a pencil shows the opposite

Steele, back again to talk about anything but the basis on which you back the AGW fraud, and to complain about it being called a fraud.

You have been given the reasons that it is a fraud, but you give no reason why it is anything but a fraud. You do not want it called a fraud because you have an antipathy to the truth for which you wish us to cater. The benefits of your status as witless do not stretch to us complying with your requirement that the truth be ignored by us, we simply accept that you will not acknowledge the truth, and we will nevertheless refrain from calling you a crook or a liar, in acknowledgement of your witless condition.

You are now of negative value to the discussion. It would be nice if you found a site frequented by other witless people and could devote your efforts to it.

I said Jennifer Morahasy was a scientist, and that her presentation is clear. She cited the temperature record which showed that the BOM was wrong about 2013 being our hottest year. Fraud backers desperately want a “hottest year” to show an upward trend in temperature. The fraud backers’ prediction of higher CO2 levels causing a rise in temperature has not been fulfilled, so "hottest year" lies are prolific.

You posted some words which you say are from Jennifer Morahasy. You posted some words the other day which you said were Obama’s, then a couple of days later said they were Bush’s words.In a few days, whose words will you say are those you have now ascribed to Jennifer If you want to be a smart-alec, Steele,you should understand that you need the appropriate equipment in the top storey, and you do not have it

I will not respond to you any further, you have gone too far in your puerile nonsense. You are a witless and deceptive fraud backer, incapable of interaction on any sensible basis.

Tink!

cohenite, I was more interested in the fact that Lewis and Karoly had plotted historical data for DTR, showing a decline over the last 50 years – see Figure 4D.

What they also did was compare the observational data with models and found the models did not reproduce the observational data perfectly. Which is no surprise. The models underestimated the decline in DTR. Models containing just natural forcings were the worst at predicting changes in DTR, whereas those containing natural and GHG forcings were the best.

The main deficiencies in the models appeared to be around modelling of cloud cover, something we know the climate models are not good at. Cloud cover of course increases the minimum temperature, where the models were worst.

So over to Ken Stewart. He used data from the BOM website. So answer this question, why did he plot the monthly mean maxima and minima separately and then eyeball the difference? Why on earth would you do that when BOM actually provides the DTR which you can plot directly? Could it have something to do with this? http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ%5Bgraph%5D=dtr&tQ%5Barea%5D=aus&tQ%5Bseason%5D=0112&tQ%5Bave_yr%5D=T

I am also struggling to understand why Ken and yourself are fixated on Australia, when climate is a world-wide phenomenon.

But you might ask yourself why Ken Stewart’s model is predicting maximum temperatures in Australia to increase at an accelerating rate?

I wouldn't say we were fixated on Australia but we do live here and alarmism is very active locally.

Your BOM graph is known to Ken but as I said he does his analysis from from 1978, just at the beginning of the satellite era. During this period DTR is NOT decreasing, that is indisputable based on the BOM data.

The point of the analysis was to rebut some hysteria from one of the usual suspects, in this case Karl Bragnanza who said the Greenhouse effect is real and explains temperature.

The period from 1978 is a valid climate period by any 'official' standard but the DTR data, a crucial, essential part of the Greenhouse effect, disproves the operation of the Greenhouse effect in this period.

I also wouldn't worry about max temp increasing at an accelerating rate; it's probably a local effect.

"I also wouldn't worry about max temp increasing at an accelerating rate; it's probably a local effect"

Yet DTR, as advanced by Ken Stewart, is not?

(BTW has anyone know of a plot of BOM's absolute DTR values to look at, out of interest?)

Globally, DTR has fallen over the last 50 years. Wouldn't local alarm raisers be more swayed by this than local effects? In any event, BOM's trend maps at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=trend-maps and http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=global-trend-maps would be of great counterweight to them.

Dear Luciferase,

'Tink!'

Beautifully done sir.

Dear Leo Lane,

Yup, I think you are done son.

It appears Luciferase has you on the street corner opposite nutter, do give the poor chap a wave.

Just for the record I did not claim Bush's words were Obama's, that was the assumption you made because your fact checking abilities are non-existent, a trait which makes you such a patsy for the anti-AGW ratbags.

Which brings us to Jennifer Morahasy and her words;

“I agree with Professor Flannery that we need to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. I support the call for the development of solar, wind and even nuclear power.”

These were from Radio National's Okaham's Razor and the transcript can be found here;
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/ockhamsrazor/we-need-real-science-for-the-environment---send/3315242

Look mate I'm sorry to be taking your heroes away from you. You have cracked the sads and that is okay, happens to the best of us, but we all learn from our mistakes and with a topic where facts seems to come second place to politics more rigour from all sides can only be a good thing.

Mr Redux, like many, if not all of the alarmists lives in the past. His quote from Dr Marohasy is from 2005.

Unlike the alarmists, and I too had a moment when I first saw the Keeling curve back in 2004, Dr Marohasy has grown up since her flirtation with alarmism and its equally repugnant solutions [sic] such as renewables.

Of course her suggestion about nuclear still holds good.

The time warp, which is really a perception locked in the stone of their egos, which informs the alarmists allows no such growth of the mind.

To clarify my decision to ignore Steele I remind subscribers of OLO of the relevant timeline.
On 21 March Steele said, in respect of Obama::
“These are his words;

“The issue of climate change respects no border. Its effects cannot be reined in by an army nor advanced by any ideology. Climate change, with its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must be addressed by the world.”

“The Kyoto Protocol was fatally flawed in fundamental ways. But the process used to bring nations together to discuss our joint response to climate change is an important one. That is why I am today committing the United States of America to work within the United Nations framework and elsewhere to develop with our friends and allies and nations throughout the world an effective and science-based response to the issue of global warming.”

… “we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming. It has risen by .6 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years. There was a warming trend from the 1890s to the 1940s. Cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s. And then sharply rising temperatures from the 1970s to today.”

I thought this was a sound, science based position to take. Why don't you?”

On Monday 23 March he said

“Oh as to 'Presidential lying' the words I quoted in my post were actually form George W Bush, so is he to be deemed a liar and a fraudster?”

I had already replied, on 21 March, quoting the lies actually said by Obama upon which I relied, and making no comment on the words which Steele represented as Obama’s.

Steele, in effect, says that his post of 21 March contained a deceptive lie. The words he represented as Obama’s, he says were in fact words spoken by Bush.

I do not consider Steele a fit person to participate here.

Leo, in a previous post I challenged you to state that a range of scientists, not all climate scientists, per se; are committing "fraud".
You conveniently haven't answered that question.

Professor Krauss has just in the last day or so talked about scientists being within a nano second of the big bang; is his work fraud? Nothing to do with climate change.

What about the Higgs Boson discovering that atoms are made up of smaller components than electrons, a nucleous, and protons; finding they can be further broken down into now even smaller conponents than previously recognised, is that "fraud" Leo?
If you cannot answer, then I believe that ...."tink"....is an appropriate response.

I have yet to see anything from deniers that blows anthroprogenic climate change out of the water. Where references have been given from deniers I have gone to those references, mostly they have not been peer reviewed, or the science has been superceded. For example, there used to be arguments about whether water vapour is a greenhouse gas or not. Warmth creates evapouration and allows clouds to retain their moisture, which then creates other impacts.

Ant, I ignored your question because it was incomprehensible.

I have pointed out that there is no science to demonstrate that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate. Until that is produced there is nothing to disprove. AGW is an assertion which lacks a scientific basis. If you can refer me to any such science, please do so.
You use the term “denier”. What are they supposed to be denying? The fraud backers have no science to support their fraudulent assertion of AGW.

Try to understand the question before you seek answers. Directing stupid questions to me will not elicit an answer. I am looking for sensible discussion.

Leo, you definitely do not have an inquiring mind; science is about continually asking questions setting up a hypothesis and then try and prove or disprove it. At times they do go up blind alleys which helps other scientists go to new areas to question. Fraud is something exceptionally rare in science. Where fraud has occurred it is mostly associated where companies stand to make huge profits.

Maybe you need to go to Scholastic Google to find information.
I notice one of the "experts" deniers have used belongs to the IPA an extreme neocon group. The IPA has tobacco and mining interests involved and they are having an impact on decision making of the Abbott crew.

Dear Leo,

Lol.

I have this vision of you standing at the edge of the sand pit with your arms crossed and a tear running down your eye refusing to talk.

The article is critical of Obama and Kerry but you immediately lifted it to inane levels with the slur of 'crooks' which you levelled in the very first sentence in this thread.

Then in your second post you said of me;

“Liars like Kerry and Obama must be great role models for you.”

You set the tone now you are sulking in the corner because you have been pulled up. You seem not to be able to recognise a fact if you fell over one, you have called for evidence but provided falsehoods yourself, and you have made unwarranted assumptions.

Of course I was trying to trip you up by posting the quotes from the 'President' without naming him directly. It was to make the very valid point that politics dictate who your side of this debate goes after rather than facts. You refused to answer the question was Bush a liar and a crook for saying what he did, and you flat out refused to believe Marohasy had said the words I quoted.

If you lead with your chin mate don't be surprised when you land flat on your back. Now suck it up.

Happily, the reality I inhabit is not the one perceived by Steele and ant. Steele has supplied evidence that he is a duplicitous clown suffering the delusion that he is clever and ant believes that by asking stupid questions she will work out what the discussion is about.

Neither of them have come up with any science to justify their support of the AGW fraud. It is time they went away with their tails between their legs.

It is very obvious that you have not gone to some of the references I have supplied. One of the references forensically pulls apart comments made by Monckton using referenced arguments.

Another reference shows satellite photos of the fractured ice sheet in the Arctic.

Having those and other references provided; and others, a person with an inquiring mind would at least acknowledge there is a case for climate change. If not convinced they would be looking for more information.

Leo, whether you like it or not CO2 levels have raised from about 270 ppm to about 400 ppm since the Industrial Revolution, I use the word "about" as there are constant small variations. That immediately creates a prima facie case that climate change is real when factors such as sun activity, atmospherics generally are studied etc. Whether you like it or not CO2 levels are routinely measured at Hawaii and Cape Grim. The amount of CO2 is progressively going up. You then need to be able to argue against physics and chemistry as to what happens next.

The case of temperatures increasing has been taken to Court twice by deniers, they lost on both occasions.
I have already given this reference in relation to Court action in New Zealand.
http://theconversation.com/an-insiders-story-of-the-global-attack-on-climate-science-21972

Becoming abusive just sullies your point of view. It mostly indicates that the person being abusive is not able to come up with answers. Continually saying "fraud" has occurred is meaningless.

Leo, you'll enjoy this reference:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/25/3418227/psychic-climate-science-denier/

ant, you are an alarmist, just like Mr Redux and even the more scientifically qualified hysterics that appear here such as agro.

AGW is a belief system; it ignores or twists facts and logic when they persistently contradict the AGW 'science'.

The fact that CO2 has risen by about 130 ppm over the last 120 years is actually an argument against AGW, if you accept that CO2 is the driver of climate how do you explain the fact that over any time period CO2 and temperature don't correlate; consider this for starters:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/offset:-347/scale:0.008/trend/plot/rss/from:1998/trend

Yes, ant, a good example of a fact deficient abusive attack on Realists, which is the best that a fraud backer can do, having no science to justify their position.

The only reference we need from you is to science which justifies your AGW fraud supporting, so we do not expect to hear from you. No more references to nonsense sites, thanks, your posts provide enough of that.

Vaclav Klaus was President of the Czech Republic when he wrote a book about a blue planet in green shackles to express his opposition to the AGW movement, which he pointed out was a political, not a scientific, movement, and totalitarian in its nature. Having experienced communist rule in his lifetime. he considered the AGW movement to be dangerous, because of its methods, which he saw were the same as the communists.

It was amusing to recall how Witless, when asked to provide some scientific evidence to justify his support of the AGW fraud, launched into a tirade about the language used to describe AGW. In true totalitarian style, he demanded censorship. He wants to block the truth by banning certain words, particularly “fraud”, which, of course, is essential to any accurate and truthful description of AGW.

Dear cohenite,

Really?

You were hung drawn and quartered last time you tried this and now you are back for more?

To repeatedly pick the 1998 spike to start your calculations from then claim “the fact that over any time period CO2 and temperature don't correlate” has progressed from clumsy and childish to duplicitous and in my opinion dishonest.

This graph illustrates that spike;

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1993

Just by adding 5 years to the time line we get this;

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1993/offset:-347/scale:0.008/trend/plot/rss/from:1993/trend

As to opinions changing over time do you still not believe in the greenhouse effect? That was one of the most bizarre things I had heard from any anti-AGW person. I'm hoping you have put that behind you.

And I haven't forgotten what you claim for a 'climatically significant' period, or have you changed your mind on that as well?

Dear Leo Lane,

Good to see you have dried the tears, wiped your nose, hiked up your pants and decided to get back into the fray. Welcome.

Mr Redux, a crucial aspect of statistical analysis which alarmists such as yourself ignore is to correlate statistical data with known physical events. The 1998 year is important because like 1976 it shows a climatic reversal. In 1998, or thereabouts, the ocean upwelling which had partially ceased in 1976, causing the Great Pacific Climate Shift, resumed. The cooling effect of ocean upwelling is well documented so the resumption of this physical process reinforces the fact that 1998 is the hottest year and temperatures have flattened since. See:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1650v3.pdf

This is a simple demonstration that correlated data and physical events and process have a temperature effect.

There is NO such relationship between CO2 and temperature.

Your persistence in saying I have been "hung drawn and quartered last time" is evidence of the dominance of your beliefs over any intellectual capacity you may have.

And your mention of the climatic period reveals again you are a conman only interested in scoring points. I don't mind being verballed if the verballer is interesting but you are dull. And tedious. And boring. Your ribald name is the most interesting part of you but I won't go there again due to the confected sensibilities of the alarmists.

So cohenite is now linking to a rejected paper by Stockwell and Cox as some sort of support for an argument. This appears to be typical of the approach that cohenite takes: unpublished work, blogs, papers in political journals like Energy & Environment, anything but the mainstream scientific literature.

So cohenite, perhaps you might like to tell the readers why this paper has failed to appear anywhere in the literature in the nearly 5 years since it first appeared on arXiv? I am sure it will be illuminating.

For those who can’t wait, the reason this has never been published is because it is bilge of the highest order. There has been discussion of this paper before and you can get a flavour of its complete silliness by starting here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14089#243692

I am surprised that cohenite has bothered to dredge this up for another shellacking.

As for the “great upwelling” you have to laugh. 1997-1998 was the strongest El Nino year in the modern record. http://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm El Nino years tend to have higher global temperatures compared with neutral and La Nina years.

Wow, and I thought Mr Redux was the king of smug Ipse Dixit; move over we have a new champ: agro!

Thanks agro for that link to our little exchange about the Stockwell paper; I'd forgotten about it; you didn't understand it then and you still don't. Your mental stasis personifies AGW belief; which is to say it is a Luddite like paralysis stuck somewhere in the middle of the 18thC.

The Stockwell paper wasn't published; but it sure made a lot of waves and amongst others McKitrick made good use of the principles:

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

Suck it up Agro, AGW is just another dreary manifestation of the end of the world meme given extra impetus by the spivs making money out of it and the positioning of the nutters into key positions.

Cohenite, AGW or anthropogenic climate change is treated as a political view or belief system by deniers; it is in fact science. I noticed in a previous post you gave a reference that only provided an abstract that did not make sense to the point you were trying to make. Your woodforthetrees likewise is meaningless; red and green lines making a cross with sparse detail about what it’s about are meaningless.
The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration provides actual data.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
What’s happening in Australia in relation to climate change does not worry me as much as what is happening in the Arctic region. Methane and methane hydrates are being voided at unprecedented levels; measured, nothing academic about it.
http://planetsave.com/2013/11/15/methane-emissions-roof-arctic-melts-faster-predicted-arctic-study-group/
Guy McPherson provides a number of references.
Scientific papers show references to prior work; something distinctly missing from papers deniers bring forward:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010RG000326/full
Ice is melting in the Antarctic region, are you going to argue with instrumentation Cohenite:
http://www.livescience.com/39606-melting-ice-pine-island-glacier.html
http://abcnews.go.com/International/video/capturing-melting-ice-glaciers-antarctica-22791324
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-15/antarctic-melting-ten-times-faster-than-600-years-ago/4628404
Explains why the Arctic area is being closely watched, it is quite an old reference and 40% of ice has now been lost:
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp
Cohenite, you give David Stockwell as a reference, he uses computer modelling something that deniers dispute create accurate results. Climate scientists use the longest periods to show what trends are happening, they do not break up data to conveniently fit a point of view. I notice it has not been published in a Scientific Journal.
Leo indicated that Vaclav Klaus who was President of the Czech Republic was somebody who indicated he does not agree with anthroprogenic climate change. He has spoken at the IPA and was introduced by Andrew Bolt. The IPA is a neocon political group it has mining interests amongst its members; climate change is not in the interests of their balance sheets. Definitely not a credible source of information, a bit like going to a North Korean leader to have them talk about freedom.

ant, you're obviously a greenie alarmist; your links stink. Take the first one about the horror of a methane eruption from Santa Claus's backside. It typifies the disconnect from reality of alarmists. In this instance even the ultimate source of AGW agitprop, the IPCC, says a clathrate methane eruption is very unlikely [go and look at AR5-Chapter 12. Table 12.4 page 78]

And current levels of methane are decreasing:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature12129.html

So we have declining CH4, as close as a disavowal of any catastrophe from CH4 as you will get from that pack at the IPCC, a biotic mechanism which keeps CH4 in check and does that stop the ratbags of AGW from yelling out, the world is going to end.

No, of course not. AGW is not science, nor even a belief; it is a pathology, a neurosis. It is so wrong that this illness has cost the world so much.

cohenite "On March 9, 2014, Arctic sea ice area was at a record low for the time of the year, at only 12.88731 square kilometers."
The Royal Society 2014 says: " As another example, Arctic warming could destabilise methane (a greenhouse gas) trapped in ocean sediments and permafrost, potentially leading to a rapid release of a large amount of methane. If such a rapid release occurred, then
major, fast climate changes would ensue."

All the evidence I have seen about methane in the Arctic region, and for that matter Antarctica, say that methane levels are increasing. You gave a reference talking about growth on the tundra,; however,the tundra is a vast area with little vegetation and in the warmer period lakes areas have been developing that were not previously there. The tundra had not been thawring to the same extent in the past during summer.
Greenland is melting at an a fast rate, there had been an article in the SMH (17/03/2014) about a huge chunk of ice breaking off allowing a speeding up of ice to move. The site below refers to "ice streams":
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/10/3237551/global-temperatures-rise-rapidly/


You might like to research methane release in the Gulf Stream as well.
Climate science deniers are a bit like terriers, snap at the heels but do little damage. The data that shows climate change has been happening through melting of the ice sheets. Climate change deniers cannot stop the ice sheets decreasing which has been the case for many years.

You said, ant, that I had not gone to all the links which you supplied.
If you say there is a link to science showing a measurable effect by human emissions on climate and specify the link, I will go to it. That is the only basis on which you can rely,to justify the assertion of AGW, and the nonsense links you have supplied, and which I have sampled, are irrelevant.

We are talking two methanes here, I think.

Prospective methane from the organic carbon decomposition, it appears, can be kept in abeyance by plant growth benefiting from nitrogen release, which may even result in nett CO2 uptake, perhaps by peat formation but this is not mentioned in cohenite's link to an abstract. However this is in the long term.

But extant methane, vast amounts tied up in clathrates especially, is another matter. Permafrost is keeping a lid on this, in the short term.

To me, cohenite's argument is like saying coal and oil will sequest carbon dioxide faster than human caused out-gassing, but kudos to him for referring to a decent information source on this occasion.

No Luci, it's not another matter; CH4 is claimed to have a much greater Greenhouse effect than CO2; but has a MUCH shorter atmospheric life than CO2 which is why this winner is grinning:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/clean-coal-and-gassy-money-and-wasted.html

The potential eruption of the clathrates has long been a favourite disaster scenario of the alarmists; it isn't going to happen; apart from the link I provided to the role of vegetation in mopping it up, there is no CH4 underneath the Antarctic ice sheet, which ant seems to think is the case, and in any event, the Antarctic ice sheet is INCREASING.

More importantly it was warmer over the last 3000 years in the Northern part of the globe and there was no clathrate eruption then:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379110002891

Alarmists often point to the PETM as an example of the catastrophe which can occur when CH4/CO2 is released in a 'bomb'. But no ones knows what caused the PETM and prior to and after the PETM global temp was already 10C above today's temps.

I'm really sick of these doomsday scenarios which, as I said, even the IPCC is not supporting.

Why don't the alarmists concentrate on REAL potential disaster scenarios like asteroid strikes or volcanic eruptions?

You must be a lawyer cohenite. Every thing you write is almost the opposite of what really happened. I am happy for others to read that thread where you showed you had a poor idea of what was really in Stockwell and Cox, got the explanation for Figure 3 completely wrong, despite the explanation being in the figure legend, failed to recognise that the statistical test was performed incorrectly, that the approach would result in Type I statistical errors and that all the reasoning was post hoc. But then math and statistics are clearly not your strong point.

Even your claim that the paper made waves, despite not being published, is wrong. It has been universally ignored – except by you. Predictably, the only uses of the article has been a further unpublished article by Stockwell and Cox that resides on viXra – the place where articles that are too forlorn for arXiv sit, and yet another unpublished article by Stockwell. When the authors of an article are the only ones mentioning an article, you know it has sunk without trace.

So now you claim that McKitrick made good use of the principles in Stockwell and Cox. This is also untrue. McKitrick and Voglesang, do no such thing. They took an entirely different approach whose only similarity was to come up with a step change in the temperature record at a different time. McKitrick and Vogelsang produced another version of the climate escalator http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47 What they produced makes no sense at all, as they are proposing an instantaneous increase in global temperature of 0.3 C happened in 1977 – and no one noticed at the time. Remember 1977 was the time when climate scientists were supposedly claiming the Earth was headed for an ice age.

You can take some solace cohenite from the fact that imajulianutter likes your current and referenced information, even if the rest of the world recognises it as bunk.

Leo, what the last references I provided are saying is that ice sheets and glaciers in the Arctic, Antarctic and sub Polar regions are melting.
An Alaskan paper commenting on ice loss in Greenland, only a couple of paragraphs:
http://www.adn.com/2014/03/26/3394591/un-chief-in-greenland-climate.html
Over the last 35 years photos from satellites have shown that the ice sheets in the Arctic region have been reducing; there is no argument against that.
As you are fully aware it requires heat to break down ice. You would be aware that dark objects take up heat more readily than white. The issue with ice melting in the Arctic is that darker water exposed will more readily take up heat than does the ice that covered it. What I have stated is something that people can work out or simply know. People would also realize that ice placed in warm water that ice melts underneath. Climate Scientists tell us that oceans will rise; through melting glaciers and ice being shorn off land masses ; however, sheet ice melting will have no impact.
The Innuit are very concerned in the Northern areas of the American continent as they are not able to hunt for their prey as they have in the past and are worried about their culture breaking down.
There is no fraud here in scientists investigating what is actually happening. Leo this is part of science and climate scientists as well as scientists from other specialties are investigating what’s going on. Some of those scientists are studying tectonic plates; there has been seismic activity which does not bode well.
I believe you will be hard pressed to suggest fraud is going on here, climate scientists and others in action, Leo.

This may be of interest to you, cohenite. http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/30/12/1067.short

We are quite aware of your obsession with ice sheets, ant, and melting ice is not relevant to the question.

What is the science which shows that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate? You cannot be as dense as you pretend to be. AGW is the assertion that human emissions cause global warming. To assert this when there is no scientific basis is fraudulent. James Hansen. a top NASA scientist, launched the fraud at a senate hearing in 2007. Here is the recollection of senator Tim Worth, who sponsored Hansen’s appearance, as to how he selected the hearing day and prepared the hearing room:

“TIMOTHY WIRTH: We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it.
DEBORAH AMOS: [on camera] Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day?
TIMOTHY WIRTH: What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room. And so when the- when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/25/bring-it-mr-wirth-a-challenge/

This gives you a whiff of the operations of fraud backers.

You might acknowledge, ant, that there is no scientific basis for AGW, and give us your reason for supporting it.

Leo said "We are quite aware of your obsession with ice sheets, ant, and melting ice is not relevant to the question."

The reason you believe it is not relevant Leo is because you cannot debunk what's actually happening there. The Poles have been described as the air conditioner of the planet.
In Greenland people believe it is happening, here is a clip that shows some of the issues climate change brings up.
http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/11772995985/The-Big-Thaw

You admitted Leo you have not viewed the references I have provided; you try and steer away from actual occurrences that are happening. The Poles are important as that is where climate change is happening quicker than anywhere else.

You use Watt's as a reference, not the best choice:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts

Whether you like it or not Leo, change is happening in the Polar regions, there is rich research as to what's happening.

Even comments such as the Inuits being worried about not being able to hunt as before, and believe it will impact on their culture; is not something that climate scientists study, but is an indication something is up.

I'm waiting for you to provide information that there is no climate change in the Polar regions, Leo; side issues don't count.

Another effort of the fraud backers was based on Tuvalu, a Pacific island. At the Copenhagen lie fest on climate, the Tuvalu negotiator wept for “my country. He was a uni student from Queanbeyan, and had never been to Tuvalu:
“For years this glittering string of atolls has been shoved in your face as the poster islands of the global warming faith - this Eden we were killing with our Western sin.
How often we were told it could be the first Pacific nation to be swallowed by the rising seas caused by our evil gases.
In fact, warned Al Gore in his An Inconvenient Truth, so dire was this danger that "the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand".
Of course, this claim was as phony as so many Gore made in a film that was honoured with an Oscar, endorsed as accurate by the CSIRO and shown with reverence in every school in the country.
As a British judge later ruled, there was no evidence of climate refugees from the Pacific having to be evacuated to New Zealand or anywhere else to escape rising seas.”……….
All of which culminated in the tearful plea from Tuvalu's delegate, Ian Fry, at the UN's great warmist gathering at Copenhagen last year - a performance that in every comic respect showed the sham behind the warming scare.
Cut your gases, or we die, he sobbed.
"I woke up this morning crying, and that's not easy for a grown man to admit ... The fate of my country rests in your hands."
Wonderful stuff! The crowd went mad with applause.
Yet all this, too, was as fake as Al Gore. Fry is not from Tuvalu, has never lived there, and is not threatened by any rising seas, since the Queanbeyan home of this part-time Australian National University student is 144km from the nearest beach.”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/theories-fail-to-take-atoll/story-e6frfhqf-1225875224751
Should we, perhaps. acknowledge that AGW is a fraud?

That’s right Luci, I’ve seen the paper; now compare it with these

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7173/full/nature06400.html

http://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/12527

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AGUFMPP23B1747C

Agro; seriously? You can have your own interpretation of our little conversation about Stockwell and Cox; at least until the ALP/Green rabble get back in and reinvigorate the Finkelstein paradigm but seriously Cook and his escalator?! The escalator is dealt with here:

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

And here:

http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/climatemadness-mocks-john-cooks-escalator/

But your most serious error is to deny the existence of the GPCS where temp rose rapidly; even Santer and Meehl believe in it and accept the GPCS in or about 1976 as their [in]famous paper about CO2 delaying the GPCS shows:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2552.1

Can you accept that agro? CO2 has ‘possessed’ ENSO and IPO so the phase change was “delayed”. This is Twilight Zone science and is discussed by David Stockwell and others here:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/07/solar-cycle-link-to-global-climate-now-something-official/?cp=all

Dear Leo Lane,

Thanks for that mate, your Andrew Bolt is a gift that keeps on giving.

First according to him there were no increases occurring in sea levels, then they were occurring but not at an accelerating rate, now no such claims rather that the atolls they are impacting are themselves growing or increasing in size at a greater rate than the sea level. Therefore AGW is a crock?

WTF?

How on earth does that work?

One gets the sense that the beachhead from which old Boltie conducts his campaign shrinks each year as he concedes more and more ground.

And then you proudly proclaim his article is further proof that AGW is a fraud. Instead I think another of your heroes has just deflected. The count continues.

Andrew Bolt is closer to the mark on most issues that good old IronPyriteRedux & his travelling snake oil show.

Have you really read that Meehl et al’s paper? Because the comments you are making about it are completely wrong.

Meehl et al. do not argue that CO2 delayed the IPO phase change. What they argue is that CO2 should have been forcing from the 1960s, but this was delayed by about a decade due to natural factors working against that forcing. When that changed in the mid 1970s, the combination of natural and anthropogenic forcings working in the same direction led to a large shift in the IPO within a few years.

As for your arguments against the escalator concept, they provide no evidence that climate change deniers do not see global temperatures as a series of flat responses punctuated by large random and permanent temperature increases, but merely try to argue that ‘warmists’ see normal variation as a catastrophic rise in temperatures. The reality of the situation is that the climate change deniers like to focus on the noise in the data, because that is the only way they can continue to deny that climate change is happening. Or even to argue that the Earth is cooling like imajulianutter does.

Agro, the Meehl paper follows a proud tradition started by Keenlyside which postulated that natural variation masks CO2 forcing:

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

See also Easterling:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/csi/images/GRL2009_ClimateWarming.pdf

Curry:

http://www.news.gatech.edu/2013/10/10/%E2%80%98stadium-waves%E2%80%99-could-explain-lull-global-warming

DelSole:

http://www.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/dts_jclim_2010.pdf

The point of these papers is that NV can negate CO2 forcing; Meehl says the GPCS would have happened earlier due to CO2 forcing if the NV hadn't dominated it, or as Keenlyside says, "masked" it.

My comment about possession still holds because Meehl speculates that the GPCS would have happened much earlier if CO2 forcing was not compromised by NV. But this makes no sense; the timing of the GPCS is entirely consistent with NV and as Stockwell and Cox show a well documented physical event, ocean upwelling variation.

But here is the really odd part; if NV suppressed CO2 forcing what has happened between 1976 and 1998 with NV in positive phase and CO2 forcing supposedly going through the roof? Shouldn't temperature also have gone through the roof? And what about post 1998 when the upwelling resumed and NV became negative? Has NV again "masked" CO2 forcing?

My guess it is AGW science which is possessed.

Leo you conveniently don’t answer my challenge. I guess that is because you cannot argue against something that is objectively happening.
Newspapers don’t cut the ice Leo, especially a news.ltd one. You might like to see this film clip Leo, it shows Tuvalu flooded. Now how do you explain that?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNql8BiAijw
The reference works if you cut and paste it.
Your reference was wrong, low lying land and king tides with storm surges is not healthy. It’s as though Tuvalu is sinking.
Aboriginals, such as the Inuit have an uncanny way of understanding what’s going on in their environments; they recognize the climate is changing:
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/584
In Canada researchers have found that water borne diseases are now more common with Inuit communities due to the rainfall and quicker melt time creating a better environment for pathogens:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2012/04/120405-climate-change-waterborne-diseases-inuit/
So even epidemiological studies bear out that something is happening to the climate,Leo.
Ice melts through being warmed Leo. There are no graphs that can be fudged or information misrepresented or made up.
Now, can you tell me why the material I have posted about the Polar regions is wrong.

It is not difficult,ant. There is an assertion in the material to which you refer, that human emissions are causing ice to melt through global warming. There is no scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.

You have said that the AGW assertion is science based. You are backing the fraud through ignorance or dishonesty.

If you were unaware that there was no science to back AGW when you said it was science based then you are a fraud backer through ignorance.

If you knew there was no such science when you said it was science based then you are a fraud backer through dishonesty.

Please clarify your situation.

Dear ant,

I'm afraid in Leo Lane you are talking to a bloke who has his hands clamped firmly over both ears, eyes scrunched tightly shut, intoning “la, la, la, la” for all he is worth. There is not one single scrap of evidence you could lay in front of him to convince him AGW is happening, and you have furnished ample on this thread.

His problem of course is that he is so deeply invested in the anti-AGW mantra that to accept any proof, no matter how convincing, would possibly damage him psychologically, or should I say damage him further.

Best go gentle on the poor chap.

SteeleRedux, I realize what you say about Leo, he provides a good strawman in helping get a message across.
His Tuvalu example, showed two things; the unreliability of news.ltd articles and and how completely wrong he was about no flooding in Tuvalu.
In his last post he acknowledged something is going on in the Polar region, but says it's not through human action. But, he cannot disprove that it has not been caused by anthroprogenic actions. His fraud claims look pretty lame.
That is quite a jump for Leo. It now is hard for him to suggest that scientists should not be investigating further what’s going on in Polar regions, or studying climate change elsewhere.
In a previous post I wrote about an epidemiological study of the Inuit in Canada; they had been experiencing more rain, less snow, and faster thaws (equals warmer conditions); and those kind of studies do not occur until a notable trend is noticed.
For climate change deniers they tend to see it as a political matter rather than a scientific one. Any claims coming from those associated with the IPA, a neocon “think tank”, are not reliable.
Willard Anthony Watts is often provided as a reference by climate change deniers, the interesting point is that he has no official qualification. He has a belief that the sun determines any changes in climate, a somewhat difficult position to hold at present as on that basis we should be going into an ice age. There has been a lack of sun spot activity which in the past has been associated with much colder conditions.
Copy and paste:

https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111

You still haven’t read the paper cohenite. This seems to be typical of your posts. You skate across things without ever attempting to get an understanding of what you are writing about and then make things up.

Where you first claimed that Meehl et al. showed “CO2 delaying the GPCS” now you are claiming Meehl et al. speculates “the GPCS would have happened much earlier if CO2 forcing was not compromised by NV”. Which claim of yours should we believe?

I suggest we should believe neither, because neither is accurate. The second is closer to correct than the first.

Meehl et al. made no claims about a great climate shift that should have happened in the Pacific in the 1960s. Their speculation is that the shift in the 1970s was bigger than it might have been because natural variation was inhibiting the CO2 forcings from being effective in the 1960s. The 1960s saw a fairly dramatic cooling due to natural forcings and only when these turned around in the later 1970s was an increase in surface temperatures seen

cohenite, I have asked Leo to debunk my information in relation to the Polar regions and I am asking you to do the same.
The Polar areas are where climate change has been happening; scientists and the Inuit believe it to be the case.

If you are not able to debunk it then your comment: "My guess it is AGW science which is possessed"... doesn't stand.

I'm particularly intrigued how you will argue against the epidemiological study I gave reference too, and the concern about culture being impacted on because of changed circumstances along coastlines.

cohenite, I'm just coming back to this and thank you for the references (tho' the Dutch one didn't work).

The abstracts make for turgid reading but I do not pick up anything in them to suggest Arctic methane emissions cannot occur through our warming.

Regarding clathrates the IPCC make reference to p163-201 of http://downloads.globalchange.gov/sap/sap3-4/sap3-4-final-report-front.pdf (can't get the full publication, sorry) which concluded that it was "very unlikely that such a catastrophic release would occur this century" but argued, however, that "anthropogenic warming will 'very likely' lead to enhanced methane emissions from both terrestrial and oceanic clathrates. Furthermore it states "While difficult to formally assess, initial estimates of the 21st century positive feedback from methane clathrate destabilization are small but not insignificant...(reference given.." and "Nevertheless, on multi-millennial timescales, the positive feedback to anthropogenic warming of such methane emissions is potentially larger"

Here's the thing tho', cohenite, why do you refer to the IPCC as an authority on this when you reject all else that doesn't suit you? The IPCC has been more than reserved in its conclusions, to the extent it even upsets "alarmists" by its moderation (who think there is a conspiracy!). Even Jo Nova refers to the IPCC as an authority, http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/source/ipcc/5ar/graphs/table-12.4-v2.gif when it suits her purpose.

I make the distinction between "alarmists" and "alarm sounders". I am a member of the latter group. To be completely unconcerned shows a lack of duty of care for our descendants, IMO. Humanity will survive if our direction doesn't change, as it survived in the Younger Dryas, but are we really willing to risk such upheaval that may return us to hunter gatherer status? I just don't get the certainty of the "denialist's" position, which grasps at any nuance as an excuse for us to continue on our merry existence.

TGIF.

cohenite, while answering my questions in relation to Northern areas of the American continent; you might also like to indicate what is wrong with The Lancet article that comments on tick borne encephalitis in Sweden. Higher levels of tick borne disease is associated with climate change.
The article is in The Lancet Vol 358 July 2001.

Found the full report : http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc12027/m2/1/high_res_d/sap3-4-final-report-all.pdf from which the IPCC draws "...it was very unlikely that such a catastrophic release would occur this century. However, they argued that
anthropogenic warming will very likely lead to enhanced methane emissions from both terrestrial and
oceanic clathrates"

The IPCC on http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI3894.1
"While difficult to formally assess, initial estimates of the 21st
century positive feedback from methane clathrate destabilization are small but not insignificant. However, concomitant sea level
rise due to changes in ocean mass enhances clathrate stability in the ocean"

Investigating this has been worthwhile and it appears methane will be the least of our more immediate problems. Some "tipping point" issues may well have taken too much dominance in the headlines, to the detriment of considered thought, but I remain an "alarm sounder" while CO2 levels and global temperature continues to rise, but always hopeful that the outright deniers are fully correct.

Agro I've discussed Meehl to bits here:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2009/07/solar-cycle-link-to-global-climate-now-something-official/?cp=all

In respect of my error [sic] I say:

"My mistake was reading that to mean that GHGs extended what would have been a naturally short -ve PDO; what Meehl is really saying is that despite the veneer of natural variability, if it wasn’t for the [inherent] natural variability dominating [or in Keenlyside terminology 'masking'] the GHG forcing the GHG forcing would have produced the GPCS much earlier; that is, if everything wasn’t behaving naturally then things would be unnatural due to AGW."

Ant; Arctic:

2013-2014 ice is accumulating at record rates:

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/most-ice-gain-ever-recorded/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/05/cryosat-shows-arctic-sea-ice-volume-up-50-from-last-year/

The prediction was that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2013:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/08/alarmists-wrongdare-i-say-itagain.html

The fact is 1979 was a high point for Arctic ice in the 20thC with a decline since, although not below 1974 levels.

Luci; I referred to the IPCC only to show that when it suits alarmists they ignore their own authoritative source of information.

cohenite, like I said before graphs are meaningless when stacked up against animations using past data. There are seasonal variations, and the ice sheet in the Arctic did extend further in 2013 than 2012. But the ice is thinner and less stable. Climate scientists use the longest possible trend as possible; whereas deniers tend to use a short meaningless time scale.
You didn't comment on the epidemiological studies; those being a kind of secondary proof climate change is happening. cohenite, are you going to argue against what is written in The Lancet? What about the Greenland farmer in a film clip I gave a reference to, who was looking forward to further warming, so he could grow a wider range of vegies.
Climate change is not academic to the Inuit, they comment about living the experience. No graphs are going to convince them otherwise.
The references you use I'm afraid cohenite are not reliable; for example, Watts does not have any professional qualification, he left University before obtaining a degree.
If you had a look at an earlier clip about Monckton, you would realize that pretty well everything he stated was rubbish, his arguments were forensically pulled apart. Some of the graph material he used conventiently missed out detail, or did not show a reasonable time frame. Monckton made a claim that his work has been referenced, when in fact it was merely edited. There are natural variations in climate and a decade is not enough time to show a trend.
You need to be careful about the date of references you use, there are many current papers that give an indication about the here and now; especially in relation to methane and methane hydrate. Miriam Karstan has provided a excellent study on methane /methane hydrates how they react when pressure is taken off them, and has show that underwater landslides can occur through this process. Temperature is one of the pressures that maintain stability of methane/methane hydrates deposites

http://methane-hydrates.blogspot.com.au/p/myths.html
Continued:

cohenite:
Please debunk my epidemiological references; you didn't when asked previously. Please tell us as well, why the Inuit have it wrong in relation to their climate changing. Has Tuvalu flooded or not?

If you are not able to put forward anything it just makes the point that climate change deniers are not able to tackle matters head on.
Please also tackle the methane matter in relation to 2014, high levels have been recorded; no theory, models, graphs involved.

ant, I'm not going to waste my time pouring over Lancet articles when the rag is a devout supporter of this nonsense.

AGW has been blamed for every bad thing under the sun I guess the spread of ticks to Sweden is merely grist for the mill; as you can see your ticks have already made the list:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Nothing is going to make you change your mind; humans are destroying the world and that's your position.

continued
cohenite, you haven't answered the specific questions around epidemiological matters I raised. Do you have data that debunks the Lancet article I mentioned?
The Inuit who live in sub Polar areas acknowledge climate change is happening.
In one of the clips I have previously provided, a Greenland farmer was happy about climate change as he felt he could grow a greater range of vegies. How did he come by that attitude?
Has Tuvalu been flooded?
Animations of photos taken from satellites show a huge decrease in the Arctic ice sheets. Graphs just don't hit the mark against real data put together in the form of an animation.

Please respond to these matters; rather than provide irrelevant references.

Methane has been increasing as measured in 2014; if you have evidence to suggest otherwise bring forward a 2014 reference.

cohenite, you wrote ... “I'm not going to waste my time pouring over Lancet articles when the rag is a devout supporter of this nonsense” … now you have medical scientists involved in some kind of conspiracy. The Lancet is a very well respected medical Journal. As stated in another post, there needs to be some apparent trend before epidemiological studies are begun. The Lancet article was about a trend in increased encephalitis being noticed, it was then investigated.

The Canadian study found that Inuit were becoming ill due to inexplicable reasons. So those matters were studied by medical scientists as you would expect them too. Your response is pretty thin to say the least.
Scientists are saying that dengue fever is on the increase in areas impacted by greater rainfall. An increase of dengue fever has been identified in Asian countries and Australia. The combination being high rainfall, and mosquitoes. There has been a notable spike in the last year or so of dengue fever, should medical scientists, and entomologists etc study that spike, cohenite?
So we have two continents and the Oceania region having water borne diseases associated with climate change. Notice I haven't gone to the numerous studies that project various ailments being an issue due to climate change, but have gone to studies where spikes have occurred.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com.au/news/2007/09/070921-dengue-warming.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/topic/dengue-feve

A great film clip in relation to Mr Watts; showing how a major project he pushed was completely wrong:

http://theaimn.com/2014/03/29/damn-the-nation-full-speed-ahead/comment-page-1/#comment-93032

Witless

you have outdone your own witlessness here, yet you claim others

' a bloke who has his hands clamped firmly over both ears, eyes scrunched tightly shut, intoning “la, la, la, la” for all he is worth.'

mate it is you who is looking into that looking-glass.

From cohenite's link http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/05/cryosat-shows-arctic-sea-ice-volume-up-50-from-last-year/

"While this increase in ice volume is welcome news, it does not indicate a reversal in the long-term trend.

It’s estimated that there was around 20 000 cubic kilometres of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so today’s minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years,” said Professor Andrew Shepherd from University College London, a co-author of the study."

This visual shows up-ticks as ice volume trends downwards http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAMN3a6u91M

Surely cohenite is capable of conceding what is before his eyes. Why is it he only wishes to talk about up-ticks then, when it suits, the down-ticks in natural phenomena (or unnatural phenomena as alarm sounders would have it). When neither suits he invokes "natural variation".

ant, your energy is wasted. Best move on and argue your points with scientific skeptics, not with pretenders to being so

PS, on methane I do find this disturbing (derived from ant's link) http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/dramatic-increase-in-methane-in-the-arctic-in-january-2013.html

My investigation into the IPCC position did not throw up the 2009-2013 sequence. If there is not an imminent a "tipping-point" in Arctic methane, at least its increasing chronic evolution should have been given prominence in the the last IPCC report, IMO.

Luciferase, anybody with an open mind will see that Leo and cohenite have not supplied references that stand up. The Andrew Bolt's article Leo provided a reference to, was a bit of a hoot. Very sad for the people of Tuvalu though, having water flood their homes. cohenite had no answers for the epidemiological matters that I raised ... he claimed medical scientists were unreliable.
My last reference in relation to Anthony Watts shows he does not provide reliable information, cohenite has used Watts a few times as a reference. I'm happy with the result, Leo and cohenite acted as strawmen.