"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.