Hi Steelie,

Still bending those “truths” I see.

You suggest I should explain one of the eleven recent press releases I posted. The one you picked on was from The Australian, May 12, 2014.

I can assure you that I did not write that article or for that matter, any of the others, it is not my “quote” I just provided the links. If you still want an explanation you can contact the author direct, Graham Lloyd, Environmental Editor at the Australian.

Like most posters on OLO or even in the wider public domain, I wouldn’t have the foggiest idea about CAGW. I can however spot a scam when I see one.

As I said in my previous post, your science couldn’t even sustain the global infrastructure that was created to respond to CAGW. That’s how we know it was all a load of old tosh.

<< That infrastructure is all gone because your science cannot even convince the global infrastructure created for it in the first place. But you still debate it posthumously? RIP. >>

Where do you find the energy to debate a phenomenon that is already dead? The only place this now gets discussed is on blogs by people like you. Duh!

Dear spindoc,

The only reason for my choice was that it was the first on the list. I'm sure that examination of the others you posted would yield much the same. But it is you who have flagged them here to support your contention that AGW is dead yet you seem neither to have understood them nor shown any willingness to defend them. Quite telling one would have thought. It appears all you do is grab any headline you come across which supports your blinkered view and then post it. How can we take anything you post with any seriousness when this is your modus operandi?

So I invite you to give this one a crack. What does it mean when it states “Antarctic Sea Ice At Record Levels”?

Hi Steelie,

Your question should be directed to the author, you have his details.

You are correct in one respect, that I posted these articles from around the globe to demonstrate that the alarmism and science promoted by CAGW believers, is contradicted by much of the international media. As you are aware I post similar links about every couple of months.

Let me put this another way Steelie. If this is a global issue and requires a global response, where is the global infrastructure that was in place but is no longer? If you do feel there is anything left, can you tell us what it is?

You are a strong promoter of the science behind CAGW and that’s fine. It’s all you have left anyway.

That said, there seems little point in debating your science with those who don’t understand it, which includes me. You should however, take your science to those who can respond to it. Politicians in Australia, overseas and perhaps more importantly to the UNFCCC and the IPCC.

There comes a point Steelie, when the constant banging on about CAGW and the alarmist perspective becomes counter productive.

Looking forward to hearing about the global infrastructure to support this global problem.

cohenite, you must really be smoking something now. Not a single one of those pages criticises the results of Levitus et al.

In the first two Anthony Watts accepts the data of Levitus et al. because he wants to use it to attack something else. Watts of course shows his true ignorance of physical processes by comparing the amount of warming of the oceans with the predicted warming of the atmosphere – ignoring the fact that it takes more energy to warm water than the atmosphere.

However, I dare say Watts attacks Levitus et al. elsewhere when it suits his purpose.

Stockwell also seems to accept the results of Levitus et al., but makes the physics faux par of trying to claim that it is not possible for a water body to transfer heat to another object. Why, I can’t understand because that is something you can easily observe.

Your joke about Levitus et al. undermining AGW is a good one and I laughed heartily at it. I am sure only the gullible, like your acolyte imajulianutter, will readily accept your explanation that because there is a difference in the amount of energy absorbed by the oceans and the amount absorbed by the atmosphere that means no heat has been absorbed at all.

You make an interesting suggestion spindoc, but not one I think at all workable. It assumes for a start that everyone will behave in a rational way. Unfortunately, we know that is not the case. There are a group of fruitcakes around who are happy to shell out large amounts of money for magic water as a cure for disease. The behaviour of humans is no way to assess the validity of science.

Hi Agronomist,

So you don’t think my suggestion would work?

It was not really a “suggestion” you nincompoop!

What I described was the whole UNFCCC, IPCC, Kyoto, Emissions Trading Markets, RENIXX renewable Energy Industrials, financiers and profiteers that are the CAGW infrastructure.

Kyoto passed away quietly in intensive care on December 12, 2012, the Chicago Climate Exchange closed in 2011 and the UN/EU markets collapsed from $45 per ton in 2008 to $4 per ton in 2012, the RENIXX index collapsed in January 2013.

The only think you got right was that it “was unworkable”. Of course it was unworkable, that’s why the whole scam collapsed.

It was all REAL you unmitigated idiot.

Ok steelee I accept the assertion temps around the antarctic are rising by 4 degrees.
Now provide me proof of AGW.