Well, global warming has been proved by statistics to be rubbish, so it is climate change, naturally and regularly occurring, and beyond the control of we mere mortals, who have to adapt, shut up, and get on with life, ignoring the Marxist money-grubbers playing on fear to aid their criminal extortion of huge sums of money from us.

All this article proves is that what passes for standards in 'social science' research is actually pretty poor, and that Don is actually a pretty sucky researcher, by his own admission.

Imagine an actual scientist quoting anonymous comments from a blog as support for their argument? They would be laughed at.

Don mentions a second-hand newspaper account of the Luntz memo, but doesn't bother actually providing a link, which would have taken all of about 2 seconds to find. The article gives the impression that he couldn't find it.

For reference Don here is one of the many that are available on the web:
http://web.archive.org/web/20121030085144/http://www.ewg.org/files/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf

If you have a good read of it Don, I think you will find it very interesting, and if written in 2001, quite prophetic. It's as if most of the conservatives actually read it and used it. Imagine that.

If you can outline what type of search you actually did for Google Scholar that you couldn't get data past 2008 for some reason, I can help you there too.

In nature it's always cyclic, the changes. Now it's time when it's getting warmer. Nothing to worry about.

I would imagine that poverty would be almost banished and the globe cleaned up had Governments not wasted so much money on the gw charlatans. So many have been so dumbed down by pseudo science. What a shameless bunch. No doubt Obama and Rudd still think its the biggest moral dilemma of the century. What a joke and they accuse Hanson of being simple.

Whatever term is used to describe climate change/global warming it is just academic.

My hypothesis is that warmth causes the cryosphere to melt, thaw or regress.
The glaciers on the Andes, Himalayas, European Alps, New Zealand Alps, Alaska and Canada are regressing. Sea ice in the Arctic is diminishing. Permafrost areas in Siberia, Northern Canada, and Alaska are thawing. Ice sheets/shelves/glaciers in Antarctica ( Pine Island, Totten, and Larsen C) and Greenland, are breaking down. Islands off the Siberian coast are eroding as permafrost is thawing. Last winter the Bering Sea was ice free.

If the planet was cooling as some deniers suggest (WUWT had an article about 3 weeks ago); then, a break down in the cryosphere would not be a feature of what is going on.
The Sierra Nevada has had poor snow falls which impact on an already moisture depleted California.

Oceans generally are displaying warmth, “the blob” has reappeared on the Eastern Pacific, high temperature in the Gulf of Mexico has created rain bombs which have impacted on the South East of the USA.
There have been some very serious Typhoons in the Pacific Ocean, an indication of extra warmth in tropical waters. Due to super storms such as Winston and Haiyan, it has been suggested that a category 6 is added to the storm scale.
These factors have been developing over decades.

With all those features, it is a nonsense to suggest there has been no warming of the planet since 1998. It is not necessary to take temperature measurements to show warming is occurring as the Earth is showing signs of warming.
Hypothesis supported.

Hi Don,

Vegetable growers used to call their glass-houses, green-houses. They pump CO2 into them in order to stimulate growth. CO2 does that. Growing plants suck up CO2. It's in what we eat. It's also what we breath out.

World temperatures have risen about a degree Celsius in the past century. Sea-levels have risen a couple of inches.

One would think that, as temperature rises across all that vast area of northern Europe/Asia and Canada, i.e. Siberia etc., the areas capable of raising crops, etc., would advance towards the North Pole by, say, fifty kilometres for every degree rise. If the distance across that stretch of country is about fifteen thousand kilometres altogether, then up to 750,000 square kilometres of virgin country could be opened up for production, for every degree rise in Celsius.

Global warming is also supposed to increase rainfall, in tropical and sub-tropical areas, such as south of the Sahara, and across our North. Again, these are huge areas, maybe a quarter of a million square kilometres in sub-Saharan Africa, and half as much again across our North.

So why not a permanent program of mass tree-planting across our North ? Better rainfall could then be turned to advantage, in order to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere, on an on-going basis, forever, in irrigating vast areas of trees ? Of course, careful selection of species, for milling, forty or fifty years down the track, into furniture, house-frames, weather-boarding, etc., as well as mulching off-cuts for fertiliser ?

As well, permanent employment for thousands of Aboriginal able-bodied people, near their home 'communities' ? Of course, people would need to gain skills in nursery work (imagine how many nurseries across the entire North), irrigation, transport, and eventual milling, with various trades spinning off from there ?

Of course, it would need greatly increased coal production, to keep up the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, well into the future, before nuclear power kicks in. Of course, then, we would have to burn wood in order to keep up world CO2 levels.

What do you reckon ?

Cheers,

Joe