Of course, that should be "caricatures", not "characterisations".

Hi AJ. The book is called "Climate Change, the Facts."

http://www.amazon.com.au/Climate-Change-Dr-John-Abbot-ebook/dp/B00S5L5Y0W

You want a quote from Tim Flannery? OK, here is one.

"I wake up in the morning thinking there are lots of times when people have woken up feeling like this, like the Old Testament prophets."

Like I said, this guy is more a pagan religious activist than any sort of scientist.

Look AJ, what Steelredux posted a few days ago about the sun's intensity reducing, which is predicted to cause global cooling, was published in "The Australian" newspaper today. The human induced climate change deniers just won. Got that? We just won. Changes in ocean currents caused by continental drift, changes in the tilt of the earth, changes in the Earth's orbit (which cycles from a circle to an ellipse, then back to a circle), all cause changes in the climate. But in the short term, it is the intensity of the sun which seems to be the primary factor in the cycle of warming and cooling of the Earth over the last 2000 years.

There was the Roman warm period which lasted until 400AD, then it cooled until 950 AD. Then came the medieval warm period, followed by "the Little Ice Age". The Earth is again in a warming period, and it looks like it will soon cool again. What I plainly see is a natural cycle.

The hoax that you and your foolish friends fell for, was that Marxist academics and Gaian worshipping activists claimed that the warm period which we were living in was proof that the earth was heating up and all sorts of catastrophes would ensue because of Human Induced Climate Change. And all of you Chicken Little's were stupid enough to swallow it.

On behalf of all climate change denialists, we accept your collective apologies. Next time, make sure your brains are in gear before you open your collectivist mouths.

No, not just any quote, LEGO.

<<You want a quote from Tim Flannery?>>

So I’m still waiting on the one where Flannery said that dams will never fill again.

As for the quote that you did actually provide, that didn’t even mention gaia:

"I wake up in the morning thinking there are lots of times when people have woken up feeling like this, like the Old Testament prophets."

Gee, the guy can’t even use a metaphor or an analogy without having some denialist read something into it. Our vernacular is filled with religious expressions (e.g. ‘a labour of love’, ‘a wolf in sheep’s clothing’). We use Freud’s terms all the time too (e.g. 'anal retentive', 'protection mechanism'), does that mean we all want to be psychologists?

You’re quote-mining, LEGO. Nothing more. Two can play at that game…

Here's Darwin doubting evolution:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (Darwin 1872)

Here's the Bible itself admitting that God doesn't even exist:

"There is no God." (Psalm 14:1)

<<The human induced climate change deniers just won. Got that? We just won.>>

Oh, the humanity!

Could you link me to this article in The Australian that reveals what scientists already knew about insolation and continental drift? I can’t find it. You’ll also want to specify what you mean by “...in the short term”. How short?

By the way, you can add particulates, amplification, and of course, greenhouse gases to insolation, too, as climate-influencing factors.

I know about all those warming and cooling periods. If you go back further, there’s even more, like the Eocene thermal optimum, and the Permian triassic period where it was 14 degrees hotter than today.

<<What I plainly see is a natural cycle.>>

Of course. But the question is, how did you determine that the CO2 we produce is not a significant factor this time around? Bear in mind that the two recent warm periods weren’t good for every continent and they weren’t as hot as today.

Dear LEGO,

Lol.

This is actually quite fun my young lad.

Okay, perhaps we could try it in bite sized chunks.

Does the 11 year solar cycle have anything to do solar temperatures? Or to put it another way does the wattage of solar energy reaching Earth vary measurably because of the fluctuations within the cycle?

See very simple.

Hi AJ

You asked for a Tim Flannery quote, so I just googled "Tim Flannery quotes" and got heaps of sites. I just picked the first site, and selected the first quote. It is very easy. You can do it too. And you will find plenty of "Gaia" references. As to the most famous Tim Flannery clanger, I will try this afternoon to find it. But I am off to work in a few minutes, (another ten hour day in the freezing cold) so I don't have time to do your research for you at the moment.

The reference to global warming and cooling, being the result of changes in ocean currents caused by continental drift, changes to the Earth's orbit, and changes to Earth's axis of rotation, was not in the newspaper article. It was simply something that I presumed that everybody already knew. However, I can now see that I am dealing with very ignorant people with no knowledge of geology or astronomy, and who are more interested in hammering ideological square pegs into round realities. So, could I suggest you purchase the very excellent "How The Earth Was Made" DVD series, so that you can partly close the appalling gap in your vestigial knowledge?

"The Australian" newspaper had an article which was pretty much a rewrite of the article submitted by Steelredux, which pointed out that astronomers are predicting a cooling Earth because of the pattern of sunspot activity. This activity, is apparently identical to the pattern observed during "the Little Ice Age." Thanks for that, Steelie, you did me a great service. Have you jumped ship too?

So AJ, how are you going to sell human induced global warming on a cooling Earth? It is not surprising that another recipient of Robert Manne's "shut them up at all costs" lawsuits was Anthony Soong, the astrophysicist. Still, you shouldn't worry too much. If the Earth is about to cool, you can always rely on the pseudo scientists in the East Anglia Climate Research station to "homogenise" the data to make cooling look like warming.

Once again, LEGO, I didn’t just ask for any quote.

<<You asked for a Tim Flannery quote, so I just googled "Tim Flannery quotes"...>>

You’re stalling.

For the fifth time now, I know what all the quotes are that you’re referring to. The question is whether you do or not. Particularly the one regarding dams never filling again. I also want to see you find one where Flannery uses the term ‘gaia’ in more than just a colloquial sense.

Again though, even if you could prove that he had some strange beliefs, that would say nothing about the science. You’re hyperfocusing on the personalities and the utterances of individuals, exactly as creationists do, because you have nothing else.

Denialism vs scepticism.

<<As to the most famous Tim Flannery clanger, I will try this afternoon to find it.>>

So you don’t know what the quote is then? If you did, then you could have Googled it just as quickly.

<<So, could I suggest you purchase the very excellent "How The Earth Was Made" DVD series, so that you can partly close the appalling gap in your vestigial knowledge?>>

Actually, I’ve already seen it, so if you could explain to me how the series highlights a gap in the knowledge of myself or anyone else, then that’d be swell.

<<"The Australian" newspaper had an article...>>

Thanks, but I’d still like to see it though. I want to check their actual claims and sources. Especially now that a new argument of yours hinges on it, even if your, "We won", claim didn't.

<<...global warming and cooling, being the result of changes in ocean currents caused by continental drift, changes to the Earth's orbit, and changes to Earth's axis of rotation, ... was simply something that I presumed that everybody already knew.>>

There are other factors too. I even listed the broad categories under which they fall in my last post. This is something I presumed you didn’t know. And it turns out I was right.

As for homogenisation, you still haven’t explained how it constitutes “fudging”, or why it’s not necessary.