Dear LEGO,

My post to you nothing to do with what doog posted so why raise it?

Instead I expressly focused on this particular comment from yourself;

“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.”

What you need to be able to illustrate is you are capable of recognising when you are wrong on a statement of fact.

So my question to you is do you accept that you were wrong and that the repositioning of the Sun's lines of magnetic force do indeed have an impact on Earth's weather?

I await your response with interest.

Steelredux.

I raised it because Doogood can't flash on the fact that the Earth has warmed three times in 2000 years, and cooled twice. I suggested that this was probably caused by differences in solar output. He suggested that this could not be correct, because the sun has only an 11 year cycle.

I pointed out that the cycle he was talking about was a sunspot cycle, where the ever twisting magnetic force lines of the sun return to zero. I told him that to the best of my knowledge, sunspots have no bearing on Earth's climate, unless they fling out a solar flare in our direction when springing back to their default position.

What you seem to be talking about, is suggesting that sunspots are the cause of solar variation. No. Differences in sun spot activity can be indicative of changes in internal solar activity, which may indicate a warming or cooling trend. It is not the sunspots which cause solar variation, they are only an indicator of the internal workings of the sun.

To AJ. Tim Flannery is notorious in the media for his foot-in-the mouth predictions, of which the above quote is his most hilarious. He has also been quoted many times referring to "Gaia", which seems to suggest that he is less a scientist, and more a pagan religious activist. It is not "the climate change deniers" who publicised his clangers, it was all over the media.

Tim Ball's lawsuit against Robert Mann would be simply a standard legal response when threatened by a vexatious legal writ.

"Data homogenisation" sounds like a euphemism for "fiddling the figures". The Australian" newspaper investigated by sending reporters to remote area weather stations where families had been recording climate data for generations. These people were incensed that their figures had been "homogenised", and they noted that none of these figures were ever "homogenised" to indicate a cooling trend.

I have not read the climategate Emails in their entirety, any more than you have read the latest book on the climate hoax co authored by 25 noted scientists and journalists.

Dear LEGO,

What on earth are you on about?

You wrote;

“What you seem to be talking about, is suggesting that sunspots are the cause of solar variation.”

No I wasn't and nothing I had posted would give a reasonable person cause to think I had.

A less polite man than myself may well accuse you of obfuscation.

As the paper I posted a link to spells out;

“"In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other -- peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a 'Maunder minimum'," said Zharkova. "Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity. When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums. When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago."

Your assertion was; ““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.”

The paper directly contradicts you. The 11 year cycle has quite a lot to do with solar temperatures and have an impact on the Earth's weather.

My direct question to you obviously needs repeating;

Do you accept that you were wrong and that the repositioning of the Sun's lines of magnetic force do indeed have an impact on Earth's weather?

How about a direct answer.

Still waiting for that quote, LEGO.

<<Tim Flannery is notorious in the media for his foot-in-the mouth predictions, of which the above quote is his most hilarious.>>

And yet you still can't give me a single example. Or are you actually claiming now that your "above quote" is accurate?

<<He has also been quoted many times referring to "Gaia"...>>

A precise and complete quote please? Of course not. What was I thinking? It would become apparent that he was only using it as a figure of speech if you were to do that.

<<It is not "the climate change deniers" who publicised his clangers, it was all over the media.>>

Actually, the first one you mentioned was initially misconstrued by Andrew Bolt and is really only perpetrated by him and the Murdoch media.

<<"Data homogenisation" sounds like a euphemism for "fiddling the figures".>>

Then perhaps you could explain why it's not necessary? Homogenised or not, the readings still show an increase anyway.

<<These people were incensed that their figures had been "homogenised", and they noted that none of these figures were ever "homogenised" to indicate a cooling trend.>>

Over what period of time? And why would these people be “incensed”? Did they have an interest in there being a cooling trend? Were they under the impression that the data should have reflected a cooling trend? If so, how did they measure this? Were their measurements taken at regular intervals? Did they control for all the possible variables? How did they determine what the discrepancy should have been between the old location and the new?

All these questions you didn't even bother to ask. Denialism vs scepticism.

<<I have not read the climategate Emails in their entirety, any more than you have read the latest book on the climate hoax co authored by 25 noted scientists and journalists.>>

I haven’t misquoted or read anything into what the authors of that book have said though, have I? So this doesn’t somehow make us equally foolish, if it’s the Tu quoque fallacy you’re going for here.

What’s this book, by the way?

Dear Steelredux, since you did not state plainly your position, and you only directed me to a link where it was up to me to figure out what you were whining about, then I object to your claim that I was misrepresenting your position. And then you claimed that you were being polite?

What you have posted from your link equates exactly with what I wrote about sunspots being an indicator of internal solar activity. Changes to the normal pattern of sunspot activity can indicate changes within the dynamics within the sun. But the repositioning of sunspots every 11 years does not affect Earth's climate every 11 years. That was the point I was politely explaining to Doogood. Please scroll back and put things into perspective before you cherry pick what I said and jump to the wrong conclusion.

To AJ.

Just scroll "Google", type in "Tim Flannery quotes", and there are dozens of sites to choose. If you are saying that Andrew Bolt was responsible for spreading the Tim Flannery quote, then that has great credibility to me. Perhaps you could convince the government to shut him up by making it illegal to "offend, insult or humiliate" climate alarmists by quoting them?

That is what it all gets down to. We both believe the people who champion our own views. I believe the people who talk sense and do not have a chip on their shoulder about the white, western, free market civilisation. You believe the people who think that Marxism is paradise, even though it failed everywhere it was attempted. You believe in the people who champion traitors like David Hicks and Snowden. You believe those that claim that successive state and federal governments "stole" aboriginal children "to breed out the black" and thereby commit "genocide" on aborigines. You believe the lefty historians who air brushed Australian history to conform to that view. You believed the climategate conspirators and the statisticians in Australia who "homogenised" the original climate data to conform to a left wing view that the world is going to end unless we all become Amish

Let’s not pretend I need Googling lessons, LEGO.

<<Just scroll "Google", type in "Tim Flannery quotes", and there are dozens of sites to choose.>>

I know what the quotes are. But I want you to post the first one (at least) for two reasons: firstly, I want it splashed all over this thread; secondly, I don’t think you actually know what it is and I want that to become apparent.

Perhaps one of OLO’s many denialists can help you out? There’s no shortage of them, after all.

Or perhaps not?

You see, I did a Google ‘site’ search of OLO for Bolt’s quote-mined snippet of what Flannery said, and it turns out that only one person has ever quoted it. Only one person out of hundreds of mentions of dams never filling again! And even then, it wasn’t the full quote - just the snippet that Bolt quote-mined.

<<If you are saying that Andrew Bolt was responsible for spreading the Tim Flannery quote, then that has great credibility to me.>>

So you didn’t even know that? And how do you figure this when Bolt’s actions here have been thoroughly dishonest? Bolt’s past legal troubles are not indicative of his credibility or his ability to quote others accurately.

<<That is what it all gets down to. We both believe the people who champion our own views.>>

Not really. You see, I’m in the habit now of checking the sources of both sides of any debate. This is why my participation on OLO is limited to only a handful of subjects and I don’t appear to have an opinion on every issue as some others do. I simply don’t have the time to thoroughly check every little claim on every single topic. This is goes to the fundamental difference between denialism and scepticism that I’ve been highlighting, with your help.

Nice attempt at a diversion there too, by the way, but when you have to resort to generalisations and characterisations, and back a conspiracy with more conspiracy, then you’ve lost the argument.

Still waiting on the name of that book.