Finally some commonsense on this ridiculous topic.

I think the author is splitting hairs!
What does it matter if what 98% of any polled group believe or not!
Always providing it is not accompanied by burning smell emanating from previously unused cerebral circuits!
We need look no further than Alaska for plain as the nose on your face evidence, that runaway climate change must be addressed! No ifs buts or maybes!
And not to the detriment of any economy or quality of life, but just the very opposite!
We can change over to much cheaper onsite Thorium industrial power, and reap huge economic benefits, [less than half what we pay now,] and dare I say, vastly cleaner atmospheres!
Solar thermal arrays can now be rolled out for comparable cost to coal fired power; provide ultra reliable 24/7 power; and on desert land, not useful for much else!
Even if only to power the desert crisscrossing rapid rail, that we now need to speed our export goods to Asia!
Moreover, their fuel source remains forever free, unlike exponentially expanding fossil fuels fees!
We can change over to mass produced onsite boigas, then use it scrubbed, to power all our domestic needs, [plus provide forever free, hot water,] and for a tiny fraction of the cost, now ripped off of us by price gouging, carpet bagging foreigners; a few of who, for all we know, may even have "commissioned" this patently obfuscating, obdurately obtuse article!?
Were we but led by pragmatists, we would now today, be rolling out gas fired, ceramic cell driven electric vehicles, with virtually unlimited range, and an ability to be refueled, with CNG/methane, for a fraction of the current costs; and in the time it takes to take a comfort break!
In every seeming disadvantage there are always the seeds of an inherent advantage.
If management teaches but one thing; it teaches there's always a better way!
Given our quite massive resources and natural advantage, huge economic advantage to us, if were were but pragmatically led!
What's the problem with massively cheaper energy, and a subsequently turbocharged economy, put into virtually permanent overdrive! Well?
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty - you should develop the habit of making comments that are relevant to the actual article you're posting on.

As for your comments this bit..

"Solar thermal arrays can now be rolled out for comparable cost to coal fired power; provide ultra reliable 24/7 power; and on desert land, not useful for much else!"

Where did you get that idea? They unveiled one in Aus somewhere recently, I think, but its rated capacity is just 12 megawatts (test plant), it was very expensive and was emphatically not "ultra reliable".. the one in Spain everyone refers to is NOT a 24/7 generator although very occasionally it reaches 24 hour operation. It is not cheap, and its output is very small..

One aspect of climate lying which confuses the issue arises from the definition of climate change originated by the IPCC whereby climate change is defined as change caused by human activity. Thus, someone expressing belief in climate change, as understood in common English usage, can be taken as believing in human caused climate change. This is a common tactic of the UN, as when they discovered a plague of AIDS in Africa, by mandating the symptoms of malnutrition to be symptoms of AIDS.
This article is a good reminder that the climate change fraud is based completely on dishonesty. There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate

AIDS denial too Leo Lane? You could rack up the whole collection.

As to the article, well it is doing a whole bunch of hair splitting. In some ways Doran et al. for all its flaws probably addressed the issue of opinions set out in the title best, by asking people directly about their opinions.

What Doran et al. also identified was that researchers who were more expert in the area were more likely to agree to the proposition that human activity was a significant factor in global temperature increases.

Anderegg et al. worked from a different strategy and started with the public statements of scientists and then worked out how expert they were in climate science by looking at their publication histories. From this they developed the number that 97% of actively publishing climate scientists supported the position of the IPCC.

Cook et al. took a third approach and probably the most difficult one. Cook et al. attempted to identify the position scientists held by what was written in the abstracts of papers. This will be fraught with difficulty as many abstracts will be a bit neither here nor there on the overall issue as the work would be looking at a small area of the whole. When they asked the scientists to rate the papers, they got many fewer no-opinion papers, because the scientists had access to the whole paper rather then the review. This second component indicates that the 'no-opinion' papers were not sorting differently in relation to for or against the position that humans were responsible for global warming compared with those that offered an opinion in the abstract.

So Cook et al. demonstrates that a minuscule component of the scientific literature supports the claims of climate change denialists.

Of course climate change researchers/conmen believe. Well they certainly believe in holding their hand out for their share of the spoils of the gravy train.

<<Finally some commonsense on this ridiculous topic.Finally some commonsense on this ridiculous topic.>>

But why even mention this stupid topic?
Obviously 98% of those who talk about Santa Claus believe in him, the rest don't bother mentioning his name.

Margaret Thatcher picked this idea in order to promote nuclear plants in England and quash the rebellion of the coal miners and their unions.
That's the whole story, there's nothing else in it.

What is the purpose of this essay? Why are some people so desperate to deny what a majority of the people who have studied the phenomenon agree on?
Of course you are correct when you write:-"but I do know, from history, that minority voices within science are sometimes proven right." They are also regularly proved wrong. So what?
Whether the planet is warming or not, worldwide the air is toxic in most cities, the water is toxic in most rivers, lakes and ponds, Fisheries are fished out, soil quality is seriously degraded, we can't find anywhere to dispose of our waste that is rendering seas and estuaries and dumps deadly poisonous, the soil is toxic in most commercial food growing areas, commercially grown fruit and vegetables are covered in toxic spray residues, human activity has caused as many extinctions as the last great meteor extinction, the natural environment in which we evolved, and which supported us for hundreds of thousands of years has disappeared, with predictably unpleasant consequences. Whether the world is warming or not, surely we should take Rhrosty's ideas and clean up our act or we'll be kicked out of what was once paradise, and certainly won't get our bond back.

Dear Ybgirp,

<<Why are some people so desperate to deny>>

When governments tell you, "in the name of Santa Claus, give us your money", the only ones who are not desperate are those who have no savings, usually because they spent it all as soon as they earned it.

<<worldwide the air is toxic in most cities, the water is toxic...>>

As you care for our planet's air, water, soil and species and want people to take you seriously, you should be the first to denounce that nonsense and remind people that there are REAL reasons for protecting this earth.

It seems to me that most appropriate question is what do the so called skeptics who pretend that human activity is not causing global climate change and environmental destruction too, really believe in. Or what is the ideology that informs their so called skepticism and thus their applied politics.
This one stark image sums it up: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel21.html

And in the case of the applied politics of the Heartland Institute and the Koch brothers. Especially the applied politics and business practices of the Koch brothers as promoted by the American Legislative Exchange Council the title of a book TOXIC SLUDGE IS GOOD FOR YOU.

Which is to say that the world-view or ideology that these benighted ghouls promote is 100 percent wall-to-wall nihilistic and anti-human - as depicted in this stark image from the same series.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel17.html

Daffy, like most people, a few years back I simply accepted the global warming dogma, as I accepted most things coming from our scientists.

Then a few things did not ring true. The more study I did on the subject the more I could see a concoction of twisted data & utter garbage.

Add the UN's IPCC way of writing something very far removed from the actual research, & it became obvious we were being fed a fraud.

Climategate confirmed that the truth was not being let get in the way of a push to disenfranchise the average citizen of the western democracies. If for no other reason, than it is impossible to ignore so much smoke of false data & lies, Climategate proved these people will do anything to keep the scam going.

I do not believe any thinking person can still believe the wilder garbage the AGW mob are grasping at, to try to keep their scam alive.

Fortunately it looks like the sun, it's spots & the planet are about to destroy the whole concoction consigning it to history. Unfortunately the perpetrators are unlike to be punished as they should.

Politics has no bearing on my opinion, just a little math.

Dear Yuyutsu,
<<As you care for our planet's air, water, soil and species and want people to take you seriously, you should be the first to denounce that nonsense and remind people that there are REAL reasons for protecting this earth.>>
What are the REAL reasons you mention? As for being taken seriously, I thought everyone whose brains are not addled by supernatural belief systems understood that the universe and all that is in it has nothing to do with humans; we are irrelevant organisms that evolved in a particular organic ‘soup’, who are following the dictates of the type of evolution that produced us. This is the reason the wise words of clear-sighted people for millennia have been ignored - they’re aberrations, just as I am, so I have no delusions about being taken seriously. Like the goats that fight and eat all vegetation on an island and then starve to death, so we will fight to get and consume everything that can sustain us until we follow the same evolutionary path as the extinct animals that preceded us.
It only matters, as you suggest, to those with something to lose.

The point of the article is simply that if you survey only those who livelihoods are based on researching the effects of any subject, the odds are that a large number will feel that their area of research is valid.

I reckon that 98% of dentists feel that regular check ups are important.

Barry York,

"....I do not have the necessary expertise to reach a conclusion on the science...."

Surprise, surprise....

Dear Ybgirp,

<<What are the REAL reasons you mention?>>

Exactly those that you did: "worldwide the air is toxic in most cities, the water is toxic in most rivers, lakes and ponds, Fisheries are fished out, soil quality is seriously degraded, we can't find anywhere to dispose of our waste that is rendering seas and estuaries and dumps deadly poisonous, the soil is toxic in most commercial food growing areas, commercially grown fruit and vegetables are covered in toxic spray residues"

These are all serious reasons - no need to supplement them with fairy-tales, or else the lot would be taken to be fairy-tales as well and ignored.

<<we are irrelevant organisms that evolved in a particular organic ‘soup’, who are following the dictates of the type of evolution that produced us.>>

This is a bit off-topic, but since your post was addressed to me, I must correct this error: we are not organisms, relevant or otherwise. The human organism which we currently wear has indeed evolved as you say, but we ourselves are not a product of evolution. Same when you mention "the extinct animals that preceded us": animals have preceded our human garments, but we have been eternally, never preceded by animals.

This thread has the premise wrong.
Certainly alternative energy is important. However the objective is not to avoid
using fossil fuels but to transition to a new energy regime.
There is a major problem in making the change.
The EROI of new alternative energy systems are very poor.
I suggest you all read this;

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2006-03-21/alternative-energy-evaluating-our-options

Global warming has nothing to do with the problem.
It is a bootstrapping problem. We need all the industrial techniques and
processes we now have to make the transition.
Trying to make the transition by removing the fossil fuels first is destined to fail.
There is a further problem, having made the transition, can the EROI allow us to
maintain and expand the system ? Answer probably is we cannot.

Another thing the 98% we keep hearing about is a fraud.
The real figure turns out to be around 50%.
The other 48% did not make definite claims, just maybe, maybe not !

Poirot,

I find your sarcasm at Barry's admission that he is no expert on the science amusing, considering that his knowledge is probably considerably more extensive than yours.

What has become abundantly clear over the past decade or so is that while science clearly points to a link between rising CO2 levels and increased atmospheric heat retention, the rates of global temperature rise and its consequences are far less easy to pin down.

Secondly, the left (who are generally technically far less equipped to grasp the concepts) have seized on global warming as a chance to impose vast social re engineering on society, as a quasi religion complete with high priests, official dogma and the burning of heretics.

Cries that "The science is settled" could only come from idiots with no knowledge of science. Science takes theory, formulates models and compares those models against real time measurements. The reality is that the models of the IPCC differ greatly from measured results. Until measured results compare reasonably closely with modelling, the modelling and the theories behind the modelling are incomplete and therefore the science is far from settled.

SM,

"..."The science is settled" could only come from idiots with no knowledge of science..."

The "only" commentators who repeat ad nauseam "the science is settled" (as some sort of rooly clever condemnation) are the so-called "skeptics".

You know that, don't you?

Curmudgeon:
The solar thermal arrays that I've studied and presented as examples, do not exist in Australia, [people (denialists) just like you, wouldn't stand for anything as patently economically sensible,] but rather exist in Arizona, and or California!
You really do need to lift your head out of that dark, warm and comfortable place you've put it, and take an honest to goodness look around.
If only to see what other people are doing or have already done!
Or that the information I've provided is inherently correct!
Just because you haven't personally seen it, or is not in Australia, doesn't mean it doesn't exist!
I mean, I live way inland and can't actually see the ocean!
Relying on your can't see it out here logic!?
Does that mean there isn't one!?
Moreover, it doesn't help any of your patently spurious arguments, if you just won't look!
And if you but did just that much, you might finally begin to understand; you're wrong on man-made climate change, and what others using the brains they were born with, are doing about it!
As opposed to just parroting the endless denials of the fossil fuel industry!
Got shares or a job in the industry, have we?
Rhrosty.

P,

My recollections differ from yours. I remember quite a few left whingers using similar words to claim that the science was settled. It is also counter intuitive for skeptics to claim that the science is settled as they are rubbishing it.

My experience is the left whingers are generally technically and economically weak and when they sense a winner they regurgitate a concept with no care nor understanding of the caveats that underlie each concept.

The two prime examples are

1 that it is generally agreed that humans have contributed to global warming. This, however, does not imply that all scientists agree with the doomsday predictions regularly issued by those of a green hue.

2 A carbon price is the most efficient way of reducing emissions. This is true if the carbon price is universal, otherwise, production simply moves from high cost areas to low areas, sometimes with a net increase.

SM,

".... I remember quite a few left whingers using similar words to claim that the science was settled. It is also counter intuitive for skeptics to claim that the science is settled as they are rubbishing it."

"Scientists" don't say "the science is settled".

"Skeptics" repeatedly spout that scientists say "the science is settled".....so when it's an accusation fired at others, it's not "counter intuitive.

That's pretty much the only time you hear that phrase - the overwhelming majority of times in any case.

If you had the time to check every reference to that phrase on a forum like OLO, you'd find that it is the "skeptics" accusing scientists of it that utter it - not the scientists or their defenders.

Scientists are "real skeptics" - they have to be.

It is all a bit of conundrum really.
One thing that has been pointed out recently is that the ERoEI of all
the alternative energy systems are very poor when looked at from construction
though to maintenance etc.
The only way in which the energy works out is if the fossil fuels are used to
construct the the alternative energy regime.
All this disbursement waffle we read about is conterproductive and will result in a total energy failure.

We have a choice, use fossil energy flatout to build the new energy hardware or get candles.
It really is that simple.

P,

The first to use this term was Al Gore in pushing the case.

http://www.thescienceisstillsettled.com/

And as we both agree, the science is far from settled.

Al Gore is not a scientist, he's a politician

Scientists don't say "the science is settled"

(even shadow ministers can defy gravity :)

We can all agree that Al Gore is no scientist. I remember watching his doco and inconvenient truth and immediately spotting a couple of glaring errors. He drives huge petrol guzzlers and has a house that uses 4x energy as much as the average,

He found a new cause and rode it all the way to a Nobel prize.

I remember Prime Minister Abbott not believing the scientists (let alone the science) and invent his 'convenient' lies.

He found a new cause to control his 'dumbed down' followers and rode it all the way to an election win.

DK,

I also remember a lot of crap being published under the guise of science.

What won TA the election was the outrageous lie that Gillard foisted on Australia.

Lol!, SM,

What won TA the election was a wholesale duping of the electorate resting on the foundation of an utterly misrepresented agenda.

Poirot, you must have noticed that, before he was elected, Abbot stated very clearly, what his objectives would be in government, if elected.

He has reported to us, on the attainment of his stated objectives, as and when it has occurred, through his efforts, and the efforts of his government.

Do you have any basis for your incredibly inaccurate statement, or is it just standard output for you?

David K, the science relating to climate change is that the human effect is trivial, and does not have a significance which would enable it to be scientifically noticed.

Abbot is acting accordingly.

If you are able to refer us to any science which shows any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, please give us the reference. Otherwise, you will understand why Abbot is right, and you are wrong

Leo Lane,

"Poirot, you must have noticed that, before he was elected, Abbot stated very clearly, what his objectives would be in government, if elected."

Lol!...very funny.

These ones you mean(verbatim):

""No cuts to education, no cuts to health, no change to pensions, no change to the GST and no cuts to the ABC or SBS."

And that's beside all the other "bits and pieces" he failed to tell us about before the election.

"He has reported to us, on the attainment of his stated objectives, as and when it has occurred, through his efforts, and the efforts of his government."

What kind of gobbledygook is that?

Why would DavidK bother to reply to you...whose standard response is to call people liars.

"Abbot is acting accordingly."

Abbott is a small-minded dill who is out of step with the rest of the world on this one...should be a hoot when it all comes home to roost.

P,

Actually Abbott has not made any cuts to the education or health budget. All he is doing is not matching Labor's promises to throw money at everything.

At least they met their core promises to scrap the carbon tax lie of Juliar's and the mining tax, to stop the boats and to repair the budget.

SM,

"Actually Abbott has not made any cuts to the education or health budget. All he is doing is not matching Labor's promises to throw money at everything."

Oh...those promises he's "not matching" would be part of the unity ticket the Abbott govt spruiked in the lead up to the election?

This unity ticket: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/coalition-joins-labors-gonski-unity-ticket/story-fn59niix-1226690519042

"THE Coalition has sought to reset the education debate for the looming federal election and outflank Labor by promising the same increase in school funding over the next four years without requiring state governments to increase their own budgets.

The announcement yesterday by Tony Abbott and education spokesman Christopher Pyne of a "unity ticket" on school funding with Kevin Rudd overturns their previous policy positions on Labor's funding reforms..."

Which - as we now know - was a bunch of BS to get them elected.

Oh, and...

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/newslocal/northern-beaches/premier-mike-baird-slams-cuts-to-health-and-education-funding-in-abbot-governments-federal-budget/story-fngr8hax-1226917317032

"PREMIER Mike Baird has accused the federal government of “outsourcing” its budget problems to state governments with cuts to health and education funding.

Oh, and...

The MP for Manly took a swing at his federal Liberal colleagues for slashing funding to the states for public hospitals and schools, which will equal $80 billion Australia-wide over the forward estimates in Tuesday night’s federal Budget."

So carbon tax and boats....how's that budget going?

You know, the one that was delivered way back in May.....and is still floating around in the ether....

Poirot. The nonsense about cuts by Abbot has not been substantiated, and he says he has broken no election promise.
He has ridden us of the carbon tax, the mining tax, and is in the process of gaining passage of a budget forced on him by the depredations of the Labor vandals. Remember all your wrong predictions of Abbot's failure?
Now you are making more stupid predictions.
DavidK will not reply, because, like you, he has no answer. Do not make ridiculous excuses for him.

Hey, this is supposed to be about what the climate scientists believe !
It was settled that 98% of climate scientists believed a whole lot of different things
about climate when someone sat down and actually read what they wrote.

Face it, the 98% was a blatant lie.
They believed a whole range of things varying from being certain to having doubts
about the degree of effect of humans.

Anyway it does not matter whether the models are right or wrong it is the wrong argument!
There is not enough fossil fuel available that can be economically extracted
to cause the warming the models predict.

It is much more practical to argue about the way we can use the fossil fuels we have
to build the new renewable energy regime.
Mark my words if we do not use the high ERoEI fossil fuels to build the next
energy system, the ERoEI of renewable energy is not high enough to do the job.

If we fail that, we will be back in the 17th century hopefully.

I'd like to bring up a few points that havent been mentioned.
Firstly, has anyone heard of Haarp?
http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/air-force-bombshell-admits-they-can-control-weather-haarp/
What about chemtrails; Why are they spraying the atmosphere with this stuff?

Most of the hysteria about Climate Change is because of reduced ice in the arctic region, but no-one mentions an increase of ice in the antarctic.
http://www.rtcc.org/2014/09/22/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-record-high-as-arctic-hits-2014-minimum/

Take into account The Flexner Report
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexner_Report
100 yrs ago the Rockefellers funded this report and gave out a ton of money only to medical institutions advocating drug-based medical procedures, its the reason why even today Cannabis Oil is not an advocated method of treating people with cancer, even though its proven to be helpful to these patients.

When you look at things like this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc16H3uHKOA
You will realise that the people with all the money probably fund a lot of these studies that go along with supporting Climate Change and that is a reason that might skew the statistics.
Scientists who aren't on-board with the agenda are probably vilified, probably don't progress as far in their careers than they would if they supported the general consensus, and so there's incentive for them to agree publicly, even if they privately have their own doubts.

Has anyone here heard of the Hegelian dialectic of problem, reaction, solution? Where you create a problem, then manage the reaction, and then come in acting like a savior by presenting the solution to the problem, in order to bring about a change you wanted in the first place?
We should take this into account especially when some on the planet advocate global depopulation.

In regards to the article itself, to me the important thing to note is that if the majority of experts abstained, then the 98% figure is untrue, and what do these people really think; why did they abstain?

I wont agree that everything is rosy and that we should do nothing.
We are slowly making a mess of the planet in many ways and we need to do more to take care of it.
We do need to work towards building new alternative energy.

P,

Perhaps you should read your own links. TA clearly promised to match the first 4 years of Gonski funding only. That is what he is doing.

Health funding is increasing at a rate exceeding inflation as promised, without the unfunded promises that labor made.

Abbott is obliged to keep his promises not Labor's.

Armchair, relax, "we" all know about HAARP.
It suggests that you do not know anything about HF Radio.
It is an experiment to see if the various layers can be modified to enhance propergation.
It is a bit like a souped up ionospheric sounder.
I suspect it was installed to enhance OTR, "Over the Horizon Radar".
Sure you are not Arjay ?

SM,

Lol!....of course one has to keep count of the backflips by the ever agile Chrissy Pyne.

http://theconversation.com/abbott-gonski-backflip-puts-the-money-back-21018

"Prime Minister Tony Abbott has done a backflip on his earlier Gonski backflip - restoring all the money he originally promised for schools funding, with a guarantee that no school will be worse off."

"Last week the government declared that it would only match the A$1.6 billion that Labor had put into the forward estimates for extra school funding, plus adding A$230 million for Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory which had not reached agreements with the Labor government.

In the election campaign the Coalition promised to spend A$2.8 billion, to match Labor’s Gonski offer to all states and territories.

Abbott and Education Minister Christopher Pyne announced the latest policy switch at a news conference just before parliament’s question time, to blunt Labor’s attack."

"After Abbott claimed at the weekend - despite election quotes to the contrary - that the Coalition had not promised no individual school would be worse off, the government now says with the restored funding there won’t be any reason for any school to be a loser."

And that was before Hockey's budget...

http://www.afr.com/p/national/budget/states_must_find_bn_to_pay_for_health_Yb6v0t2socuZhmUueCG2xH

"The government is creating a $80 billion hole in the states’ projected funding as it pulls back on Labor’s large commitments in health and education."

Backflips, backflips, policy switches.....if they weren't quite so shambolic and squalid, it might be entertaining!

Poirot

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16779#295157

Why would I be bothered to reply to Leo when his standard response is to call people liars?

If I produce Lanelaw's patrents, birth certificate and DNA signature to him, he will still deny the evidence of his birth.

So too with his denial of the significance of AGW.

He is continually presented with evidence and he continually lets loose with his denial mantra - Google "Leo Lane".

I can't be bothered with irrational fools.

Hi Bazz,
Thanks for your reply.
I only mentioned HAARP because no-one else had brought it up.
These HF radio transmitters are all over the planet.
With a topic such as climate change, a plan to superheat the ionosphere and modify weather patterns may have some bearing on the issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEAmjTeSe8g
In reference to Arjay; Some of the things I mention might seem a little unusual or differ from the general consensus but I usually back it up with some form of reference (whether or not you can count these things as evidence) to show that what I am saying is worthy of adding to the discussion.
I like to consider the factors that they aren't openly telling us just as much than the ones they are, because I like to try to see the bigger picture.
Lets not forget that this topic is used as a political issue to gain votes, as well as others who have a vested financial interest in profiteering from carbon emissions trading.
- Scott

“I can't be bothered with irrational fools.”
You will need to tolerate yourself, DavidK, or no one else will. You cannot reply rationally, because there is no science to support your position. You employ ad hominem, the resort of the confused fool.
Despite the increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere, there has been no global warming for 18 years. The nonsense about the warming occurring but hiding in the ocean has been disproved, so where do you go now, David? To the hall of shame, to join the other supporters of the AGW fraud.
The science, which you ignore, shows that there is no measurable effect on climate from human activity.
You continue to ignore the science, thus alienating yourself from rationality, and aligning yourself with fraud..

Yada...yada...yada - Leo Lane,

Liar...liar...ad hominem....fraud....scam...dishonest....burp...sproing!...whir...pop!

Climate Science 101 - OLO-style!

Whoops;
>Yada...yada...yada - Leo Lane,

Liar...liar...ad hominem....fraud....scam...dishonest....burp...sproing!...whir...pop!

Looks like Piorot dropped a bit somewhere.
Better reboot !

Once again Leo Lane claims there has been no warming for 18 years. Once again Leo Lane gets the data wrong.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996.5/trend

It is a bit like a stuck record.

Poirot,

Thanks for admitting in a round about way that the coalition did not promise any Gonski funding beyond the 4yr forecast, and in spite of there being no written agreement with the majority of states, the coalition matched the funding for all states. Similarly for health the coalition at no point promised to match the wild and unfunded promises that labor made, and the standard indexing of the health budget (above inflation) in no way constitutes a cut.

I see now that Labor is admitting that it stuffed up removing the Pacific solution, and would probably continue with the tow back policy.

Agronomist, like all fraud-backers you constantly come up with references which you say contradict the real world
“John Coleman, meteorologist and co-founder of the Weather Channel, wrote a letter to the Hammer Forum – which held a climate change symposium Thursday night in Los Angeles – outlining his position on the topic of man-made climate change. The main points from the letter, which was picked up by the British publication The Express:
• There has not been man-made global warming in the past, is none in the present, and there’s no reason to fear that there might be any in the future.
• Efforts to prove the CO2 emissions cause climate change have failed.
• There has been no warming over the last 18 years.
• There is no climate crisis, the oceans aren’t rising, polar ice is increasing, polar bears are increasing, and heat waves and storms are not increasing.
• Climate change is a political and environmental agenda item without basis in science."
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/10/191907-guess-weather-channel-co-founder-said-man-made-climate-change/
I thought it was agreed that your assertions have no scientific basis, and can have no basis other than dishonesty. Remember, you have in the past given Skeptical Science as a scientific reference. That is conclusive proof of dishonesty.

Yes Scott there are HF transmitters all over the planet, even I have two,
one in front of me here and one in my car.
For donks people have wanted to try to strengthen the layers by directing
strong signals at them but all to no avail.

The only way it has been affected is by nuclear blasts at those altitudes.
Didn't last long though, and the effect was to reduce propagation.

From Leo Lane: "Remember, you have in the past given Skeptical Science as a scientific reference. That is conclusive proof of dishonesty."

Like almost everything that Leo Lane posts, this claim is not true. I have not used Skeptical Science as a scientific reference.

There has been one solitary occasion I have referred to the site at all http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15648#271263 and that was because the site had a copy of a figure from this scientific paper http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 that would otherwise be unavailable to readers without a subscription.

Lovely, Leo...

"“John Coleman, meteorologist and co-founder of the Weather Channel, wrote a letter to the Hammer Forum – which held a climate change symposium Thursday night in Los Angeles – outlining his position on the topic of man-made climate change. The main points from the letter, which was picked up by the British publication The Express:
• There has not been man-made global warming in the past, is none in the present, and there’s no reason to fear that there might be any in the future.
• Efforts to prove the CO2 emissions cause climate change have failed.
• There has been no warming over the last 18 years.
• There is no climate crisis, the oceans aren’t rising, polar ice is increasing, polar bears are increasing, and heat waves and storms are not increasing.
• Climate change is a political and environmental agenda item without basis in science."

That would be this John Coleman?

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_Coleman

"John Coleman may describe himself as a scientist or even a meteorologist but he is neither. His degree is in media studies"

"Coleman's critics counter that his allegations have little, if any, scientific basis..."

"Coleman claims that he has 30,000 backers in the form of those who signed the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine petition on global warming, but the National Academy of Sciences called that petition "misleading" and "not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science."

Lol!

SM,

We all know Pyne and Abbott are shifty dodgy operators...why don't you tell all the state Premiers that they're not facing budget cuts in health and education.

Yes, Marles was testing the waters yesterday his "might" or "maybe". I note Labor are denying today their policy has changed. Talk about having a bob each way....

I do enjoy your posts, Poirot. Thanks.

Poirot, Coleman spent his working life as an accredited meteorologist. He is 80 years of age, so when he gained accreditation it was before the delusion that a university degree was a demonstration of expertise in meteorology. Most professional people do not keep up their accreditation at his age.
He certainly knows his subject:
“Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming are a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. “

http://www.desmogblog.com/john-coleman

Do you know if the crooked railway engineer, Pachauri, who heads thefraud-backing IPCC, has kept up his accreditation? What qualification does he need for climate lying? In what conceivable way could his expertise match Coleman’s. You cannot be as stupid as you pretend to be, Poirot

If John Coleman was an accredited meteorologist he would hold a Certified Broadcast Meteorologist from the American Meteorological Society, but he doesn't appear on their list: http://www.ametsoc.org/memdir/seallist/get_listofcbm.cfm

He would be better described as a retired weather presenter.

Leo,

Your lot bounds in chappies who call themselves meteorologists or are merely weather presenters.

I mean, how is this statement from you relating in any way that Coleman has the requisite expertise?

"He certainly knows his subject:
“Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming are a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. “

I mean whoopee-doo!

That's telling me!

Here's the blurb from your link:

"According to an article in Columbia Journalism Review, “Coleman had spent half a century in the trenches of TV weathercasting; he had once been an accredited meteorologist, and remained a virtuoso forecaster. But his work was more a highly technical art than a science. His degree, received fifty years earlier at the University of Illinois, was in journalism.”

"John Coleman has not published peer-reviewed research on climate change."

Next....

That’s the way, Poirot. You have no science to support your position and no rational comment on the substance of what Coleman says, so you talk irrelevant nonsense.

Coleman is right, and you cannot put forward any scientific basis to say otherwise.

Leo Lane,

"That’s the way, Poirot. You have no science to support your position and no rational comment on the substance of what Coleman says, so you talk irrelevant nonsense."

Lol!....so it's "irrelevant nonsense" to point our that you fella graduated in media and has never published peer-reviewed research on climate change?

And the best "you" can throw up is that he thinks it's a scam...a SCAM I tells ya!

"Coleman is right, and you cannot put forward any scientific basis to say otherwise."

No mate, you're the one who can't put forward any scietific evidence to say he's right....(and obviously, judging by your sample, nor can he)

Leo give up. Poirot has passed the Turing test !
There is a list of files and you have only skimmed the top layer.
Try DIR, it may surprise you.

Poirot, I have posted the science on numerous threads where you have participated. As I have reminded you, time and again, you ignore the science, and feign stupidity, because you have no answer but persist in being a fraud-backer.

Here is a summary by an excellent climate scientist, Robert Carter, which you have seen before:
“"However, our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails.
Bob Carter”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ZUVPX02KD1UHZQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/08/nrclimate08.xml&page=2

Based on the science, Coleman is right.
If you have any science to support your assertions, Poirot, let us have the reference, or stop wasting our time reading your unsubstantiated rubbish.

Leo Lane,

You don't post "the science". You post cherry-picked blurbs from your fave "skeptics".

Here's a summary of "geologist", Robert Carter...

"Bob Carter (Robert M. Carter), born 1942 (age 71–72), is a retired Australian marine geologist and a paid AGW denier. He is also an adjunct (unpaid[1]) Research Fellow at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University" in Australia,[2] and on the academic advisory council of the denialist front group, the Global Warming Policy Foundation.[3] Carter is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries (Exxon, Scaife Foundations and Koch Family Foundations, etc).

According to the Sydney Morning Herald in 2007, Carter was "on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector" and believed, SMH said, that "the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed."

"Carter is Chief Science Advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition.....Carter is also an advisor on a number of other right wing and denialist "think-tanks" and groups the Institute for Public Affairs (Aus), The Galileo Movement (Aus), the Science and Public Policy Institute (US), the International Climate Science Coalition (US/Canada), the Australian Climate Science Coalition, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (UK) and Repeal the Act (UK).[7] He was a founding advisor to the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition. Carter is a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs."

"Based on the science, Coleman is right."

You complained that I failed to address the "substance" of your quote from Coleman.

"Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming are a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam."

Tell me where the "substance" is in that load of vacuous blather?

Sorry, omitted the link to that summary.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter

So that readers are not misled by the nonsense posted by Poirot, I provide some accurate information on Robert Carter
“Professor Bob Carter is an Emeritus Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA, Melbourne). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist, environmental scientist and writer with more than 40 years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999.
Bob has wide experience in management and research administration, including service as Chair of the Earth Sciences Discipline Panel of the Australian Research Council, Chair of the national Marine Science and Technologies Committee, Director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program, and Co-Chief Scientist on ODP Leg 181 (Southwest Pacific Gateways). He is currently Chief Science Advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition and an Emeritus Fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs.

Bob Carter contributes regular comment and opinion to media publications and to public debates on scientific issues which relate to his areas of knowledge; his articles have been published in Quadrant Magazine, The Australian, The Age, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Wellington Dominion Post, The Washington Times and the UK Sunday Telegraph. Bob also offers lecture or workshop presentations by arrangement. Bob's public commentaries draw on his knowledge of the scientific literature and a personal research publication recordof more than 100 papers in international science journals on topics which include taxonomic palaeontology, palaeoecology, the growth and form of the molluscan shell, New Zealand and Pacific geology, stratigraphic classification, sequence stratigraphy, sedimentology, the Great Barrier Reef, Quaternary geology, and sea-level and climate change.

Bob Carter's current research on climate change, sea-level change and stratigraphy is based on field studies of Cenozoic sediments (last 65 million years) from the Southwest Pacific region, especially the Great Barrier Reef and New Zealand, and includes the analysis of marine sediment cores collected during ODP Leg 181.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/

Good grief Leo Lane, you do realise the 'graph' that Bob Carter relied on to state:

"However, our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record" and then "Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979..."

Is actually a graph of mid-troposphere temperatures?

For those not in the know, the mid-troposphere is the bit of the atmosphere 6 km above the Earth.

Now why would someone as supposedly expert as Bob Carter in climate science choose a mid-stratosphere data set to show that the temperature of the Earth is not warming?

Because Agronomist that is where the most warming is expected.

Yes Agronomist, what a shame that NOAA deployed all that expensive satellite equipment in the wrong place to take the global temperature. I wonder why no-one thought to ask you where the readings should be taken.
NOAA have tried to make amends by lying about global warming and falsely asserting that it is happening, when their scientific readings show that it is not
“The political beauty about climate data is that it can be easily manipulated in order to fool the public.
The National Oceanic And Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) recently released its State of the Climate in 2012: Highlights. To no one’s surprise, the report gives the reader the impression that warming is galloping ahead out of control. But their data show just the opposite."
http://notrickszone.com/2013/08/07/noaa-confirms-model-defying-global-temperature-stagnation-2012-was-among-coolest-in-21st-century/
Stick with them, Agronomist. If they ever gain control of their act, they will be of great assistance to a dishonest AGW fraud-backer.

Leo Lane,

Thanks for providing all the whizz-bang titles for Bob carter....all of which appear to be organizations which actively promote climate change denial.

"Professor Bob Carter is an Emeritus Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs..."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs

"The Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) is a right-wing, corporate funded think tank based in Melbourne. It has close links to the Liberal Party of Australia..."

The IPA key policy positions include: advocacy for privatisation and deregulation; attacks on the positions of unions and non-government organisations; support of assimilationist indigenous policy (cf. the Bennelong Society) and refutation of the science involved with environmental issues such as climate change."

"He is currently Chief Science Advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition and an Emeritus Fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Climate_Science_Coalition

"The International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) is a group of climate change skeptics which describes itself as "an association of scientists, economists, and energy and policy experts working to promote better public understanding of climate change science and policy...."

"The ICSC site highlights news on climate skeptics from all over the world. It also propagates skeptics' conspiracy theories on climate change."

Ho hum....

Leo, don't you know that anyone who has opinions that are not
compatible with the left is automatically a terrible, dreadful person
and if they belong to organisations with other similar persons their
opinions and all in that organisation are therefore of no value and
must be incorrect.
Any other conclusion is impossible.

Poirot is a lefty, so promotion of truthful science is reprehensible, in the view of her and her group.

Carter has done so much for exposition of the true science of climate change, that he is a constant target of the fraud-backers. They have no science to support them, so their attacks are personal, on anyone who successfully exposes honest science.
Poirot has no science to support her backing of the AGW fraud, so her input is baseless lies to support her ad-hominem efforts, against anyone who propagates the truth.

Leo,

I am always amused by the species of far left whinger that we see on OLO. Typically this species eschews the main stream news organisations who all provide information that is fact checked, with a broad spectrum of opinion.

Next the left whinger digs up from under a rock on the internet a blog that consists of polemics written by other far left whingers with no fact checking, no diversity of opinion and very seldom anyone qualified in the area they are writing about. These include the New Matilda, the Independent Australian, and now the CMD.

Next the left whinger will quote from one of the feebly written articles from these far left whinge blogs and expect everyone to accept this as the word of god.

It is these same left whingers that were telling us that Abbott was unelectable, that the boats could not be turned around, and that Juliar had done nothing wrong.

I would suggest that nearly all climate scientists are satisfied that the following statements are true.

1 The average global temperature is elevated by some 33 deg C due to the so called greenhouse effect.

2 The increase in the level of the following greenhouse gases CO2, methane, NO2 and CFCs in the atmosphere are due to human activity.

3 The average global temperature has increased over the last 150 years.

The majority (possible not 98%) of climate scientists would also attribute the increase in global average temperatures over the last 150 years as being a result of elevated levels of green house gases.

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/understanding-climate-change/finding-reliable-information-about-climate-science

Note the above site is neither left or right wing, it is simply information put out by our own government.