Well Mr Redux, Mike Hammer is a scientist and I knew:

1 you wouldn't read his paper,

2 or if you did you wouldn't understand it,

3 or if you did understand it you would either ignore it

4 or misrepresent it

Pick one Mr Redux.

Mike Hammer is an engineer. Has a Master of Engineering Science from University of Melbourne and works for the equipment manufacturer Agilent Technologies.

Wrong in the first sentence. Need we bother going on?

If you are going to appeal to authority cohenite, at least make sure you have authorities you can appeal to.

Dear cohenite,

In my response I asked “Okay mate what would you like me to do now?”

There are many pieces of presumed evidence that are bandied around in this debate. No one has the time to digest them all. Some are obviously worth the effort but getting one's head around a paper can take time and patience.

So how to judge whether the effort might be warranted? Well as I stated the first assessment should be is it coming from an unbiased source. Proper scientific process is designed to combat bias and that is why the second question should be was the paper peer reviewed. The next obvious question is whether the author is an scientific expert in the field. So if we are discussing AGW an expert would be a climate scientist. If none of the above apply then the last measure would be is the author a scientist.

As this paper has struck out on all counts why are you expecting anyone to put the effort into assessing it especially since you have shown time and time again that you have little understanding yourself of the papers you post here. Your modus operandi is to quickly move to the next obscure piece when challenged.

But this is my commitment, if you can give me a fulsome explanation of Hammer's paper and tell us what it means in the context of AGW, then I will take a proper look at it.

Some how I doubt that is going to happen.

. Steele, thanks for your feedback, it is interesting to see your approach. You imply that the engineers and geoscientists are biased, because they are involved in the oil industry. This makes them knowledgeable in the field of climate science, because their industry is confronted with it. They have to consider the science from the point of view of their industry, and the effect it is alleged to have on climate. This is part of the background of the survey and in no way invalidates its conclusions. Do you invalidate a survey of climate scientists because the Climategate emails show that their approach is not only unscientific, but fraudulent?

You have given us a sample of your reasoning as a fraud-backer.It has no validity. The article to which I originally referred, and of which you were so disparaging gave a reasonable summary. Your careful analysis of it was two words:” regurgitated garbage “. In summary the article said:
Only 36 percent of respondents say humans are the main cause. The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is sceptical of alarmist global warming claims.
Taken together, these four sceptical groups numerically blow away the 36 percent of scientists who believe global warming is human caused and a serious concern.
One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’
This is a reasonable summary, and was opposed only by invective from Steele. He sees his whole pitiful effort as a “victory”.
.

What a snob you are agro; typical of the PhDs who are so smart and running the AGW scam. Anyway keep up the 'good' work.

If Hammer, nice fellow that he is, is too low for your tastes Mr Redux than read this about Beer Lambert:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138.short

They say:

"It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

The aerosol findings are also interesting.

But that'll do for me.

“But this is my commitment, if you can give me a fulsome explanation of Hammer's paper and tell us what it means in the context of AGW, then I will take a proper look at it. Some how I doubt that is going to happen.”

Prophecy. It is a gift.

And just to prove it wasn't a fluke;

“Your modus operandi is to quickly move to the next obscure piece when challenged.”

The abstract of an article published in 1971?

Oh my goodness.

Dear cohenite,

Mr Hammer may well be a lovely bloke but he isn't a scientist. Would I put more weight on his offerings than those of a lawyer? Of course. And I'm much more comfortable driving around in a car designed by engineers than by scientists.

But where the science of Global Warming is concerned my main go to source will be scientist, preferably of the climate variety.

Dear Leo Lane,

So this was the article to which you were referring.

Sorry mate but you have proven yourself to be scurrilous and shameful. Even the Heartland Institute chap who wrote the Forbes article qualified his remarks; “Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey”.

But you gave no qualification did you? Your exact quote is;

“There is a peer-reviewed survey showing that only 36% of scientists consider that global warming is caused by humans.”

The survey group was APEGA members of which scientists make up less than 7% of its membership.

Shame sir shame! That is utter fraud in anyone's eyes. Hang your head.