Hi Ant – Thanks for your post. Saves me the job of pointing out how fraudulent Salby is.

Leo Lane should try reading the 5th Assessment Report – something which is most unlikely to happen, even though it is a report accepted by every Science Academy in the world and all but a very few of the worlds climate scientists.

Agnostic,

The problem with you and your ilk is that you don't understand what is important and relevant for policy analysis and advice. It is not "the science". It is the answers to these questions:

The most important things we don’t know about human induced climate change are:

1. Will increasing CO2 concentrations bring forward or delay the next rapid climate change event? What are the probabilities?

2. Will increasing CO2 concentrations make the next rapid climate change event more or less damaging? What are the probabilities?

3. Will the advocated GHG mitigation policies make beneficial changes to the climate? What are the probabilities?

4. If so, what is the expected magnitude of the benefit attributable to the policies? What are the probabilities?

5. What is the probability the advocated mitigation policies would succeed given the realities of international politics, economics, conflict, etc?

6. What is the probability the advocated policies would deliver the expected benefits (i.e. climate damages avoided)?

These are some of questions we need answers to. Climate scientists and CAGW believers continually avoid tackling them.

You keep repeating your beliefs, like a mantra. You read reports like the AR5 to learn talking points to repeat. It's like a religious zealot learning text from the bible and believing it is the gospel truth. You don't think critically. So the issues is you keep repeating the mantra that the people who would like to be called 'Progressives" have been repeating for decades. They've been exaggerating, scaremongering and telling doomsday stories but continually avoiding the key questions that need to be addressed for policy.

Until you stop repeating your boring mantra of your irrelevant beliefs, you and your ilk will continue to retard real progress.

Many of the folks like Agnostic who keep repeating their mantra and about "the science" do not realise that climate change doesn't behave anything like the IPCC's projections. The climate is wild. It changes suddenly and quickly. However, we do not have sufficient resolution to detect the sudden changes over the distant past. But the resolution is improving bit by bit. The fact that climate changes suddenly and quickly is important to understand. Then you might take the questions above more seriously, and realise why we need to attempt to answer them based on evidence.

Here is an example:
Coxon and McCarron (2009), ‘<i>Cenozoic: Tertiary and Quaternary
(until 11,700 years before 2000)</i>’
http://eprints.nuim.ie/1983/1/McCarron.pdf

"Figure 15.21 The stable isotope record (&#8706;18O) from the GRIP ice core (histogram) compared to the record of N.pachyderma a planktonic foraminiferan whose presence indicates cold sea temperatures) from ocean sediments (dotted line). High concentrations of IRD from the Troll 8903 core are marked with arrows. After Haflidason et al. (1995). The transition times for critical lengths of the core were calculated from the sediment accumulation rates by the authors and these gave the following results: Transition A: 9 years; Transition B: 25 years; and Transition C: 7 years. Such rapid transitions have been corroborated from the recent NGRIP ice core data."

This and other figures suggest:

1. Very rapid warmings occurred in the past before human GHG emissions; in fact, the climate as recorded in paleo data in Ireland, Greenland and Iceland, warmed from near glacial temperatures to near current temperatures in two events in 7 years and 9 years at 14,500 and 11,500 years ago respectively.

2. Life thrived during the warming events (Life loved warming and warmer conditions).

3. There is a periodicity of about 500 to 1000 years represented by minimums at about (eyeballed from the chart):

years before present:
16,000
15,500
14,500
13,800
13,000
12,600
11,600
11,200
11,000
10,600
10,200
9,500
9,200

Yes, ant,talking of fraud-bckers, Tamino (Grant Foster) is a great example. He demonstrated what he was in 2009 when he was head authot of Foster et al purporting to counter McLean et al which demonstrated that the warming to that time was due to climate cycles which left no room for the assertion of warming caused by human emissions. The unethical behaviour of the climategate miscreants in this matter was exposed by the Climategate emails posted shortly thereafter in 2009.

Salby’s science is correct. “ Salby's findings corroborate the works of Humlum et al, Frölicher et al, Cho et al, Calder et al, Francey et al, Ahlbeck, Pettersson, andothers demonstrating that man-made CO2 is not the driver of atmospheric CO2 or global temperatures”.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/climate-scientist-dr-murry-salby.html

So the usual procedure of the fraud backers, where they have no scientific answer is to launch personal attacks and scurrilous vilification, in which the fraud backers show an expertise which balances their lack of science.

It would take a Royal Commission into the AGW fraud to sort out how and by whom Macquarie was induced to act as it did towards Salby, and effectively terminate his tenure, but we know why. He published some correct science.

Even the Chinese are involved in your so called "fraud" Leo.
http://shichang-kang.itpcas.ac.cn/index.html

This particular scientist has stated Mt Everest is shrinking due to climate change.
"On Thursday, Chinese scientist Kang Shichang told the country’s official Xinhua news agency that Mount Everest’s glaciers have melted by 10 percent over the past 40 years, and that the shrinkage is due to climate change."

The liberal government does not at least in theory deny climate change. Their policy is to reduce CO2 emissions by 5% by 2020 as is the Labour parties.

The proposed mechanism by which the liberals wish to achieve this goal is by a policy called direct action. The details of which are somewhat sketchy at this stage but basically the idea is to pay large polluters to reduce emissions. On the other hand the current system as put in place by Labour requires the largest CO2 emitters to pay a fee for each ton of CO2 produced.

Now the Labour system raises revenue by charging polluters a fee on the other hand the liberal system requires the tax payer to foot the bill for reducing CO2 emissions to the tune of some 3 billion dollars. Is it just me who thinks that is both crazy and unfair to expect the tax payer to subsidised large companies to clean up their act, particularly as Tony Abbott has sent a strong message to businesses not to expect handouts from his government