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?