Oh Hi AJ. I will be happy to ream you out next, but I have got Doogood by the throat at the moment. I am trying to deprogram him, and I am about to exceed my 24 hour post limit.

Now Doogood.

Your friend Warmair did a "hit and run", so you can't expect much help from him.

The sun has an 11 year sunspot cycle, which represents the repositioning of it's lines of magnetic force. To the best of my knowledge, this has nothing to do with variations in solar temperatures, and has no bearing on the Earth's weather, unless we get hit by a solar flare of ionised gas.

Now, the point I was trying to make, and which you keep artfully dodging, is that history, (which the climate scientists have not yet found a way to airbrush) tells us that in the last 2000 years, the Earth was warm, then it cooled, then it warmed again, then it cooled, and now it is warm again. Now, please open your eyes. What do you clearly see here? A cycle of global warming and cooling, 1800 years of which clearly can not possibly blamed on HICW.

The hoax perpetrated by the IPCC, is that our present warm period must have been caused entirely by HIGW. And the present IPCC proposals are the "last chance" to save the Earth. The onus is then upon them to prove it. But what have we got?

Here is one of the famous "Climategate" emails.

"We can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and that is a travesty that we can't."

Got that? They admit that the Earth is not warming and they can't "account" for it.

Now we get the next notorious one.

"I have just completed Mike's Nature (the Science Journal) trick of adding in the real temps for each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) to hide the decline."

They fudged the figures to "hide" the fact that the steady rise in temperatures have declined.

Dear LEGO,

You wrote;

“The sun has an 11 year sunspot cycle, which represents the repositioning of it's lines of magnetic force. To the best of my knowledge, this has nothing to do with variations in solar temperatures, and has no bearing on the Earth's weather, unless we get hit by a solar flare of ionised gas.”

Oh dear me.

Here you go;

“Solar activity predicted to fall 60% in 2030s, to 'mini ice age' levels: Sun driven by double dynamo”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/07/150709092955.htm

Perhaps it is now time for you to add astronomers from the Royal Society to your hit list.

Or you could just accept that 'the best of your knowledge' really isn't up to it.

SteeleRedux,

I thought it was also cute of LEGO to compare the acceptance of AGW with the denialism surrounding the connection between lung cancer and smoking when both claims are the result of the same mindsets and motivations.

ConservativeHippie,

Unless you have something else to add (perhaps the legitimate practice of data homogenisation?) it doesn't look like you need to answer my question. LEGO's already given the answer I was waiting for in his address to doog.

LEGO,

I don't usually get into the these climate change debates because this forum is overrun with denialists and we have word limits. But I just couldn't resist having some fun with the naive enthusiasm that you're displaying at the moment - suggesting that you have only just stumbled upon all the repetitively debunked denialist arguments.

Funny how there's this alleged this grand conspiracy and yet “climategate” (consisting of thousands of emails over thirteen years, mind you) could only find those two lines you mentioned that sounded suspicious when taken out of context. Quotes mined in a way such that even a creationist would blush at the mere sight of them. So, since you’ve provided them for our convenience, let’s take a look at them, shall we?

<<They admit that the Earth is not warming and they can't "account" for it.>>

They “admit” no such thing.

Tremberth was referring to the cooling that occurred in 2008-2009 and most climatologists explain that by the fact we were at the nadir of the eleven-year solar cycle and that 2008 was a particularly strong La Niña year. Tremberth argues that the warming effect of CO2 should be able to overcome these temperate cooling influences. But had you actually bothered to read the emails that preceded Tremberth's, then you would have seen that two other climatologists (who accept AGW, mind you) disagreed with him.

You hadn't even gotten that far, though, had you LEGO? No, you just swallowed the usual denialist BS.

<<They fudged the figures to "hide" the fact that the steady rise in temperatures have declined>>

Firstly, the word "trick" is used as far as computer science, chemistry and biology...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176504003143
http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/122615/2/sjart_st0151.pdf
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11982-008-1003-z?LI=true#page-1

If “trick" really meant "a piece of fraud", then the above scientific papers above would be admitting fraud before they even began.

As for the phrase "hide the decline"? Well, that was in reference to the decline in tree ring data. It had nothing to do with actual temperatures. It was in regards to the tree ring responses to climate. It questioned whether tree rings should be used when reconstructing climate data from the past. That's all.

You lot are such a bunch of uneducated conspiracy theorist McExperts. Here’s a website that should keep y’all entertained…

http://listverse.com/2012/12/28/10-reasons-the-moon-landings-could-be-a-hoax

To Steelredux.

Doogood's post, was that the three historically recorded variations in Earth's temperature in the last 2000 years could not have been caused by solar fluctuations, because "the sun has an 11 year cycle." Doogood is suggesting that the sun could not be the cause, because sun warms and cools only in 11 year cycles, which is nonsense. As an amateur astronomer myself, I was aware at the last solar minimum (I almost purchased a sun telescope myself, but the model that I wanted was sold out) that astronomers were concerned about the differences in sunspot activity in the last solar minimum, which they predicted may be a portent to solar activity never before recorded.

Now AJ. This is the first time I have ever written on climate change too, AJ. Our first time together. We had better make it a good one.

First your questions. 1. Tim Flannery's foot-in-mouth quote has been very widely reported in the news media, and you know it. 2. If they are hiding data from sceptical scientists, moaning over the figures which say that the Earth is not even warming, and fudging them to pretend that they are, then that is an tacit admission that they themselves know that their theory is scientifically unsupportable. 3. Here is Timothy Ball himself on the lawsuits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1FKB1fzX1Eo

Now the Emails. The authors of the Emails are claiming that they were taken out of context, and I will admit that they could have been. Other posters on debate sites have done it to me deliberately. But then again, some of my opponents have claimed that I have done it to them, when they knew that I had not. You are prejudiced to believe them, while I am prejudiced to disbelieve them. They look like stand alone admissions to me, and since the information they are moaning about in the Email is correct (the Earth has not warmed in 15 years), and since the Australian climate figures were similarly "adjusted" by the Gaia worshippers at the Bureau of Meteorology, it validates that they mean exactly what they say.

LEGO,

1. Yes, I know what the quote is that you’re referring to. I just want to see you quote it. The full quote, I mean. You won’t though, because it would then become obvious that he’d never said what you claimed he said. In fact, I’m willing to bet that you don’t even know what his exact words were. You’ve just swallowed the denialist crap from those with whom you are politically aligned.

2. This doesn’t answer my question at all. It evades it entirely with yet more unsubstantiated conspiratorial thinking.

3. Thanks for the link, but I already knew about the libel cases. Ball himself filed a similar lawsuit. Does that suggest that he’s trying to silence others as well?

<<The authors of the Emails are claiming that they were taken out of context…>>

Not only are they claiming that, but we can check for ourselves and see. Even if they were saying what you had assumed they were saying, it’s hardly evidence for a grand conspiracy given that there were thousands of emails spanning thirteen years.

<<…and I will admit that they could have been.>>

Then why don’t you read them? I’ll tell you why: because you’re not actually interested in what they were really saying. This goes back to the difference between scepticism and denialism that I mentioned earlier.

<<Australian climate figures were similarly "adjusted" by the Gaia worshippers at the Bureau of Meteorology, it validates that they mean exactly what they say.>>

If you’re talking about data homogenisation, then no, it validates nothing and is a legitimate and necessary practice. You don’t even know if that’s what you’re talking about, do you?

By the way, it has warmed over the last fifteen years. This old canard started because Bob Carter apparently doesn’t understand how temperature trends are analysed and thought he could simply get a ruler and draw a line from the highest point in 1998 to the highest point in 2005.

Sorry, LEGO, but your powers of deduction could be perfect and it still wouldn’t matter if they’re working with false information.