ConservativeHippie,

If convincing yourself that I can prove black is white is how you explain the drubbing you’re witnessing here, then I guess there’s nothing I can do about that. I suppose it’s only to be expected.

<<...why hasn't Flannery ever denied he said those things, about ten different predictions, if he never made them?>>

Maybe as a way of rising above it all? I don't know. What I do know is that you're committing the Shifting of the Burden of Proof fallacy here, and possibly the Argument from Ignorance.

What are these "ten different predictions", by the way? Sounds like a conveniently neat number to me. Was it made up?

Even if Flannery got them wrong, what does it matter? As I've said multiple times now, the science doesn't stand or fall on what one guy says. The mistaken belief that it does is symptomatic of denialism.

<<...it stands to reason he wasn't foreseeing enough rain to ever render them useful again.>>

Or he simply he understood that even a short period of time without water would be devastating enough to a major city to justify desalination plants. Nothing wrong with a contingency plan if more droughts are inevitable in the future too.

LEGO,

You found the quote! Good stuff! That’s not the full quote, but it’s a damn sight more than what Bolt quoted. Bolt only quoted that last line there, so you can understand how misleading it was when not read in context of the whole comment. As you can see, Flannery said nothing about dams never filling again.

That was big of you. I'm impressed.

Continued…

...Continued

<<And sorry to burst your bubble, but Flannery did predict that the planet would heat up.>>

I'm sure he did. That is, after all, the consensus view. How is this bursting my bubble? And why are you still waffling on about him? What part of, “the science doesn't stand or fall on what one guy says”, do you not understand?

<<The Little Ice Age coincided with the Maunder Minimum.>>

You didn't read the article you were referring to earlier very closely, did you? Not this bit, at least:

"Scientists do not say the Mauder Minimum was the only factor in the little ice age and the Met Office was quick to say that weaker solar activity would not completely cance­l the effects of rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere on global temperatures.

The impact was likely to be colder winters in the northern hemisphere."

That’s what we sceptics call “confirmation bias” (http://skepdic.com/confirmbias.html).

<<You claim that ... a lower temperature sun will only give a temporary respite from rising temperatures caused by HIGW.>>

No, I was speaking in hypotheticals. The article you referred to suggested there would be little difference (only resulting in colder winters in the northern hemisphere), and this is the view of most experts.

<<I simply observe that the Earth has gone through heating and cooling periods in the last 2000 years caused entirely by solar variations, and we are simply in a warm period.>>

“Entirely”? The medieval warm period was believed to have been caused by higher levels of solar radiation, reduced volcanic activity, and possibly a change in ocean currents, but solar irradiation has been on the decline since 1960.

Which brings us back to the question I asked you earlier, that remains unanswered: how did you determine that the CO2 we produce is not a significant factor this time around?

Also, how did you rule out particulates and amplification in the past warm periods?

Hey AJ, I think you have now grabbed at every straw left to the warmist brigade.

I don't think you have a leg left to stand on, or anywhere left to go for a crutch.

Time to find another line.

Errrr, AJ. Tim Flannery said " So even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and our river systems......”

Please explain how that differs in meaning in any way to "the dams will never fill again."

I burst your bubble because you said in your post (July 15) that "nobody" (including Flannery) has "absolutely asserted that the planet will heat up." Wrong again.

OK, so you are saying that the article said....."Scientists do not say the Mauder Minimum was the only factor in the little ice age and the Met Office was quick to say that weaker solar activity would not completely cance¬l the effects of rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere on global temperatures."

Emeritus Professor of Geology Ian Plimer has publically stated that geologists have hard evidence in the form of carbonaceous rock samples, that prove that the Earth's atmosphere once had 40 times the concentration of CO2 in it's atmosphere, and it was cooler than it was today.

Since climate effects caused by volcanic eruptions are known to only persist for a few years, (Mt. Pinatubo, Mt. St. Helens, Krakatoa) how did the odd volcanic eruption play a part in global cooling periods lasting hundreds of years? And since changing ocean currents caused by continental drift is an extremely slow process, you can rule out changing ocean currents for the cyclical changes of the last 2000 years, Including the apparently rising temperatures of today. And that only if you believe the "homogenised" data anyway.

So, what is left, is the changing intensity of the sun. And there is not a damn thing that we can do about that. All of the carbon taxes and green power in the world can not stop the sun doing whatever it wants to do.

Hey Hasbeen. How about you actually give an example of what one of these straws are that I'm supposedly clutching at, eh? Can't? Didn't think so. More likely you just snuck in a butthurt hit and run.

LEGO,

This is beyond confirmation bias, it's delusional…

<<Please explain how that differs in meaning in any way to "the dams will never fill again.">>

Flannery was talking about run-off not reaching dams and rivers for irrigation in rural areas. So far, lack of rainfall is still a problem for many rural areas. But even just taking that one line, Flannery never mentions a timeframe. Furthermore, your quotation marks suggested that you were quoting him verbatim, and that's dishonest.

<<I burst your bubble because you said in your post (July 15) that "nobody" (including Flannery) has "absolutely asserted that the planet will heat up.">>

No, I didn't. You're quote-mining again with your dishonest use of quotation marks.

<<...Ian Plimer has publically stated that geologists have hard evidence…>>

PUBLICALLY stated?! Well, it's official then. Did he also "publically state" that the data he was using has a 10-million-year time-step, which means that the period with higher CO2 levels could have been (and likely were) as much as 5 million years before and/or after the period of glaciation?

<<...how did the odd volcanic eruption play a part in global cooling periods lasting hundreds of years?>>

So because you don’t know the answer to this, you ruled volcanic activity out altogether? How scientific of you. You’re contradicting the claim from denialists that a drop in volcanic activity is entirely responsible for what we see today.

Here, this paper should answer your question: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00298051/document

Increased volcanic activity played a significant role in the 'Little Ice Age’ too: http://go.owu.edu/~chjackso/Climate/papers/Crowley_2000_Causes%20of%20Climate%20Change%20Over%20the%20Past%201000%20Years.pdf
http://ww.w.climateknowledge.org/figures/Rood_Climate_Change_AOSS480_Documents/Hughes_Medieval_Warm_ClimaticChange_1994.pdf

What about ocean atmosphere? How did you rule that out? Your understanding of climatology is simplistic.

<<...only if you believe the "homogenised" data anyway.>>

You still haven’t explained how homogenisation is not necessary or constitutes “fudging”. Nor have you provided any evidence for fudging, or explained why the fudging is not made apparent through discrepancies with non-homogenised data.

Jesus, AJ. You claimed that Tim Flannery never said that the "dams would never fill again", and when I gave you the exact quote where he says just that, you say it is "dishonest" to quote people "verbatum." Are you for real? You haven't been smoking whatever it is that has afflicted Arjay, have you? ConsevativeHippie is wrong, you are not just clutching at straws, you are clutching a ton of bricks and your credibility has sunk right out site.

God, no wonder you believe in HIGW when you can claim with a straight face that black is somehow white. Thank you for confirming to me that climate alarmists have a real problem recognising self evident reality. In your case, you seem to have a problem understanding plain English also.

Plimer said that the geologists have hard evidence to prove that CO2 levels forty times higher than today were extant when the temperature of the Earth was lower than today. How glaciation periods somehow negate his evidence is something you did not bother to explain. Those straws just keep getting further away, don't they?

Your next trick, is the old "baffle them with bullshiit" ploy. You submit many pages from a scientific magazine written in diseased English gobbledegook, which quotes temperature data from climate alarmist supremo Robert Mann. Sorry mate, I just don't believe anything that Mann writes. Mark Steyn has called Mann's "hocky stick" climate graph "a fraud" and he is being sued by Mann in Washington DC for defamation. The smart money is on Mark Steyn.

Next you claim I forgot "ocean atmosphere". Eh? How does the atmosphere over the ocean cause periodic cooling of the Earth lasting hundreds of years? Jesus, you really are having trouble finding any straws to clutch at, aren't you?

The most telling evidence of how desperate you are becoming, is in your own writing style. Suddenly, the super cool AJ with the superior, condescending manner, is writing in a style more reminiscent of a petulant child who is saying total nonsense to defend the idea that Santa Claus really exists.