Good article. It is quite weird how most clothes are from overseas when everyone should be wearing Australian woollen shirts and jumpers pretty much all the time as they look better and it would employ 1000's of rural people.

Certainly Chinese clothing is rubbish: poorly fitting, mis-sized, buttons falling off at first use, and shapeless after the first wash. Even the well known and once respected Australian labels are unecceptable now that they are made on the cheap in China; and they still cost as much as they did when they were made here properly. The people who gain from cheap-labour countries are the brand owners, not Australian consumers who have to make do with much more poorer quality than they were used to before globalisation, the very worst thing to be inflicted on us after multiculturalism and and high immigration.

Trump, as an Alpha Male, rich, powerful and famous, attracting ever younger wives* under prenups.

- probably does not feel privileged to be blessed by a self-regarding academic resident in Germany who writes about Eco-Socialism.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#Personal_life

I do find it interesting that every time I read pieces like this they prove that Academics have less idea of the likely results of or reasons for world actions than the janitor at their universities.

The fact that they live in the same incestuous environment both at work & in their private lives, means they have almost no contact with the real world. This is probably intentional, so their little bubbles which hold their feelings of superiority don't get accidentally deflated.

Just like computers, GIGO.

Trump's alleged victory must be investigated to see how much was down to hacking, dead voters and such and how much was the result of Honest ballots?

As always, America has the finest democracy money can buy!

Trump may now be president elect, but has to deliver on his promises to keep the role! And he is not completely over the line until the members say he is!

That said, some of his predecessors had equally questionable morals or ethics? Just none as comfortable as he seems to be with Russia? And few as seeming hostile to China and Chinese interests?

He may not be as all powerful as he believes he is, and can be impeached and even lose office if he oversteps his role? No doubt he will have to watch his P's and Q's.

A thousand eyes will be watching and dissecting his every move or nuanced word! And he will be called to think on his feet and assume unaccustomed democracy.

His history of accepting advice is very poor? And not a good look for a man who could risk annihilating the world with a single bad call?

I don't see a leader, just an apparent hustler with an unenviable reputation, whose verbal promises, not worth the paper they're written on?

He's no Jack Kennedy, but could prove my assessment of him as an honorable man wrong? In which case I'll be pleased as a dog with two tails to wag and readily eat my words!
Alan B.

Sarai has certainly demonstrated in this article that he cannot think straight.
The main benefit of Trump’s success was that the criminal opposing him was not elected. At least he sees that the criminal’s supporters should stop their ridiculous chanting in the streets.
The author is a climate fraud supporter, using the puerile “save the planet” slogan. He must be aware that the IPCC have failed miserably in their assertions of human caused effect on climate, but he continues to support it.
Trump will at least oppose the climate fraud to avert the economic disaster the fraud promoters would wreak on the country. They are rid of the fraud supporting, anti-American Obama, and have averted the disaster of the criminal Clinton.

Oh Leo, what a fool you are, trotting along with your fellow anti-climate change sheep, bleeping the same old bulldust you read in your daily red-top, BAA, BAA, BAA!

I asked you a question once, about what you would say if the world followed your opinion and did nothing to halt or slow down the rise in temperature, and in 50 years time discovered you were wrong, too late to stop a catastrophe, what would you say? You, of course, didn't answer, your kind never do.

And just for the sake of reality, the people of the US did not vote for Trump, they voted for Clinton, by a two and a half million votes, it was a severely undemocratic voting system that got him over the line, a system he called an affront to democracy.

You are a climate fraud supporter, BillyD, so your opinion is that of an ignorant or dishonest person.
You are either ignorant of the fact that there is no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate, or you are aware, but dishonest enough to support the fraud.
If you assert there is any science to show that there is any measurable human effect on climate, then refer us to it.
Fancy an ignoramus like you calling anyone a fool.
We have to be grateful for the system in the U.S., or the criminal ilary might be President elect

Seems like a reasonable enough assessment of the situation to me.
Much better than all of the one-dimensional blather that you will find in the Australian/IPA/Quadrant nexus.
Tony Judt wrote a marvelous truth-telling book titled Ill Fares The Land.
The Land and all of Earthkind will certainly become much more ILL and degraded (possibly even terminally) when Trump and his team take over next year.

The argument for AGW is not built on a single paper but on accumulated evidence. That is its strength. Data are collected from a wide range of separate, independent disciplines and together they build the case that the climate is warming partly as a result of our burning of fossil fuels, and that the warming will continue to increase if measures are not taken to reduce emissions. You describe yourself as a sceptic, a label you imagine dignifies your position, making it appear reasonable and considered. In fact, you are none of these things. You are a denier, and by definition unreasonable; someone who is implacably opposed to evidence however powerful it is said to be. It is an anti-science position which tells us you have neither the will nor the intelligence to understand the issues of this subject.

Now answer my question Leo, what if you are wrong, and it's too late, what will you say? Oops!?

As usual, things are bad but they could be worse, and no doubt will be, as the western world debt bubble collapses...
A pretty interesting article, but no surprises there...
For the sake of world ecological survival, we better hope for economic failure, not more growth, one thing I do agree with. Terrifying thought to think of 400 million Chinese middle class. To be hoped they kill themselves with obesity , which they probably will!

Billyd

Global warming is not a new phenomena.
10k years ago there is clear evidence today, of fifty foot sea level rises, which only took one hundred years to complete. The old shore line is clearly visible at that depth. I spend half my life exploring it!
No argument could be put to suggest it was human motivated.

Yes, billyd, no science to support your nonsense, just meaningless dishonest waffle, and you have the gall to ask me stupid questions
There is no science which shows any measurable human effect on climate, so the claim that reducing human emissions will reduce global warming, is baseless nonsense. The assertions by the IPCC of the effect of carbon dioxide have failed.
Professor Robert Carter gives an excellent summary of the failed hypothesis of climate fraud promoters regarding the effect of CO2.
“The IPCC advances three main categories of argument for a dangerous human influence on climate. The first is that, over the 20th century, global average temperature increased by about 0.7C, which it did, if you accept that the surface thermometer record used by the IPCC is accurate. More reliably, historical records and many geological data sets show that warming has indeed occurred since the intense cold periods of the "little Ice Ages" in the 14th, 17th and 19th centuries. The part of this temperature recovery which occurred in the 20th century is the "global warming", alleged by climate alarmists to have been caused by the accumulation of human-sourced CO2 in the atmosphere
However, our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails.”
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2007%2005-03%20AusIMM%20corrected.pdf
What would you say, billy-goat, if the fraud promoters you support were able to wreak economic havoc, because we acted on their nonsense when there is no science to support their lies?

We are all lucky that Trump has the top job because Hillary wanted war with Russia. The deep state is now at war with itself and the masses due to the alternate media is awakening. Hillary is trying to blame her defeat on the Russians. The Reds are under our beds once again but the more likely revelations of PIZZA Gate and John Podesta , demonstrates that the Peds are under our beds.http://sgtreport.com/2016/11/pizzagate-is-a-worldwide-citizen-investigation-now/

People like Billyd are pretty much beyond rational discourse.

Not only irrational, but pig ignorant: "...it was a severely undemocratic voting system that got him over the line..." That system was intended by the US constitutional founders to counteract the power of the mob so that it reflected the wishes of the broader population. California and New York account for most of the Hitlery vote. Without either of them, Trump would have had a popular majority. Why would anyone think that it's "democratic" to let the snowflakes, neurotics and psychotics of the Left - concentrated in New York and California - dictate to the rest of the US? The electoral college system worked: it is a weighted average, and very little different from our own system, where a majority vote is less important than the number of seats won.

And by the way, Billyd, Abraham Lincolm was elected in November 1860 with 40 per cent of the popular vote. Any thoughts on that?

Coincidentally, Don Aitkin has published an excellent summary of Judith Curry's assessment of the current state of global warming alarmism:

"What are the facts in the climate science debate?
+Average global surface temperatures have overall increased for the past 100+ years
+Carbon dioxide has an infrared emission spectrum
+Humans have been adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

"That is pretty much it, in terms of verifiable, generally agreed upon scientific facts surrounding the major elements of climate change debate.

"Human-caused global warming is a theory. The assertion that human-caused global warming is dangerous is an hypothesis. The assertion that nearly all or most of the warming since 1950 has been caused by humans is disputed by many scientists, in spite of the highly confident consensus statement by the IPCC. The issue of ‘dangerous’ climate change is wrapped up in values, and science has next to nothing to say about this." Visit donaitkin.com.

We do know, however, that historical climate data has been fraudulently "adjusted" and a lot of it "lost" or destroyed by promoters of the global warming scam so that their lies cannot be disproved. We also know that the satellite and balloon records show temperatures lower than the "adjusted" surface records. And we know there has been virtually no warming for nearly 20 years, despite increased atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The global warming scam has been running since the mid to late 1970s. Of the thousands of predicted catastrophes attributed to "dangerous global warming" since then, not one has come to pass. Not one. Check the "warmlist" at numberwatch.co.uk.

Fifty years from now, Billyd, we'll look back and see that governments have wasted trillions of dollars on a hoax.

Saral Sarkar's analysis is one of the more sensible and perceptive short pieces I have seen. Most commentators are way off the real topic which is the sociological and psychological background to Trump's appeal, embedded in the mantra of globalised growth delusion and denial of the world's population problem. Political and economic obsession with economic growth, with the concomitant failure to see the relationship of that with population, is what Sarkar is really aiming at. The fact that climate change is an outcome of the aforesaid global obsession should not blind us to the human causes as well as the human reaction to economic disadvantage that is the lot of many people in the evolving globalisation and its fallout.

@ diver dan ... what happened 10k years ago is irrelevant, this is now, post Industrial Revolution, the worry now is accelerated climate warming partly brought about by humans.

@ Leo Lane ... same old cherry picking, and once again refusing to answer my question. The truth is, you can't answer, because it's an embarrassment to you, if you could think of an intelligent reply, you would.

@ calwest ... the electoral college was intended for the election of members of congress, not the election of a president, where it is totally unnecessary. The presidential election is a straight vote, one against the other, what does the electoral college bring to the table? Nothing! The people voted for Clinton, they got Trump, FACT!

Bobbing your empty head up again Billyd?
You have no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, but you stupidly and dishonestly support the climate fraud.
You support the reduction of human emissions, when any fool knows that there is no science to support the assertions of the fraud promoters, so you support a financially damaging policy which, if implemented, would be highly detrimental your own community.
What will you say when asked, if the damage you support comes about, what science you relied upon, when you were stupid enough to support the climate fraud?
Perhaps you will rely on the lies of James Hansen, a leading climate fraud promoter:
”Hansen argues, without empirical evidence, that “positive feedbacks” and “climate forcings” will multiply any current mild warming we might experience until a climate “tipping point” is reached. He claims this will lead to a dramatic rise in global temperature and the destruction of life on Earth. He freely invokes the emotive scenario of what his grandchildren will have to face in a future warming world. In doing so he ignores that the Earth is not warming even mildly, despite rising levels of carbon dioxide. He also ignores evidence which suggests that a warmer Earth would likely be more hospitable to both flora and fauna.
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2013/08/james-hansen-s-many-and-varied-furphies/

You have a big mouth, BillyD, but you are quite reticent when asked to justify your nonsense with science.
There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate. Emissions of carbon dioxide are 3% as against Nature’s 97%. The human contribution is negligible and its effect is not measurable, much like your thinking apparatus, billyd.

I understand your frustration Leo. Here you are, cherry picking the words of oil sponsored nobodies, desperately trying to look intelligent, and failing miserably. Why don't you just admit you have no answer, and get on with your deluded life, whilst the rest of the world gets on with doing something about global warming. I know you probably believe in all your nonsense, despite the overwhelming evidence that convinced almost every country in the world to sign up for action. I bet you even believe 911 was an inside job, and a missile hit the Pentagon. You should hang out on the Daily Mail forums, the place is full of people like you, it really is a good laugh.

Back again, billy-goat, still with no science to back your position, which I have demolished, by dealing with the assertions of a leading fraud promoter. You have no assertions to demolish. You have no science , so your question has no validity, being based on a false premise, unsupported by logic or science.
You have a big mouth, with no substance, no science and no sense.
I have backed my statements with references to science. You have made no statements, because you have no science to which to refer us.

Hahaha, you have 'backed' nothing my deluded friend, no science, no proof, and an embarrassing inability to answer my simple question. I look forward to further insults in place of anything of substance, I trust you won't disappoint.

Billy-goat has shown by his last post that his participation on the forum is purely as a troll.
He is not rational, and has no comprehension of science, he thinks my accurate description of him is meant as an insult.
He is best ignored. Do not feed the troll.

I feel your hurt Leo.

Back again, donkey?
Brushing aside an ineffective troll like you does not hurt.
I felt only satisfaction.

You can't answer my question though, can you? Which PROVES you are wrong. If only we could post photos, I would show you my self-satisfied smirk.

billyd, you are an ignorant moron, impervious to fact.

Your comments about global warming and CO2 emissions show the entire world that you know nothing. You are merely a posturer.

Similarly, you know nothing about the US electoral system: the electoral college determines the presidency, based on population distribution in each state. That's how it works. That is why Donald Trump is president-elect. That is why Hitlery is not. Moron.

The answer to the donkey’s stupid, and falsely premised question is “It will never happen”. There is no science to show a measurable human effect on climate, so the question is nonsense.
Here is what a climate scientist says:” To summarise, the indirect evidence advanced for human-caused climate change is all equally consistent with a natural origin. Since the establishment of the IPCC in 1988 several thousand scientists have spent more than US$50 billion looking for evidence of human-caused warming without avail. No direct evidence exists for a worrisome magnitude or rate for human-caused global climate change over the last fifty years.”
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/4/a-new-policy-direction-for-climate-change

This is why the donkey fails to refer to any science.
Name calling , and stupid questions are his only resource, as it is with any climate fraud promoter.

Oh dear Calwest, in your futile rush to disprove your ignorant tag you totally misrepresent my intent. The electoral college brings nothing to the election of president, which should be a straight vote. Three million more people voted for Clinton than Trump, showing what a complete undemocratic shambles it is. Even Trump said so, until it suited him.

Poor old Leo, accuses me of name calling now, you couldn't make this up!

Let me give YOU a quote, from NASA .... "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

But, of course, they are all wrong, and little Leo is right. What that means is, for every three quotes from poor Leo, there are 97 counter quotes.

But, I'll tell you what Leo, I've had enough fun with you, so I'll leave you with a link, and allow you to have the last word.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Have fun Leo, baa baa baa!

billyd, you are becoming an ever greater embarrassment to yourself.

The electoral college "brings nothing to the election of a president, which should be a straight vote," you say. That's an opinion and a very ill-informed one at that.

Your opinion means absolutely nothing. The role of the electoral college is defined in the US Constitution, which takes precedence over your puerile mewlings. The US Constitution sets out the role, functions and powers of the electoral college and your opinions about what "should" be are juvenile and moronic.

Do try to deal with reality, there's a good little boy.

As for your "97 per cent" figure, billyd, wrong again. That has been discredited and refuted a million times by now, as a simple Google search would have shown you. I know it's difficult for a dunce, but do try to keep up.

Here's a sample: http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#11b3ff6e7187

As I said earlier, you are impervious to facts. I'm guessing facts make your head hurt.

Ah, so as well as a poor historian, Calwest is also a denier, not unexpected.

But really, Calwest, posting a link to that well known 'climate scientist' Alex Epstein is as funny as it gets. This is someone who makes a living from advocating the use of fossil fuels, a WRITER, surely you could have done better than that? Try again.

Back again, donkey, still with no science.
Your link was to an article full of lies and dishonesty, but no science, just like yourself.
Besides the baseles lies about human caused warming, with no science to support the assertions, it even throws in the lie about "acidification" of oceans. Well done, donkey, not a skerrick of truth in the whole article.
You use the scurrilous word “denier” when you have no science to deny, just lies.

Still hurting Leo? NASA not good enough for you? Too much science for you, confused?

What is so pleasant, from my point of view, is that the world cares not a fig what you think or believe, your blathering is irrelevant as the world will act on MMGW and there's nothing you and your fellow deniers can do about it. (Cue smug grin)

Just as an aside Leo, here is a critique of your quoted hero, Bob Carter .... https://skepticalscience.com/bob-carters-climate-counter-consensus-alternate-reality.html

Another monkey making a living from fools like you and Calwest.

Of course, donkey, you were unaware that the deceptively named skeptical science, run by the failed cartoonist John Cook is a climate fraud promotion site, never taken seriously for any of its assertions on science. Some of his supporters say that his failed paper asserting 97% support by climate scientists for the human caused global warming lie was a mistake, and not the attempted fraud it obviously was.
He will not post any comment on the site which sets out the truth, so the comments section is fraud supporting nonsense, not truthful comment.
Your dishonesty is entrenched, donkey.
I post Robert Carter’s science here, because it is truthful and his science is unassailable.
If Cook had any science to disprove it, he should post the science instead of baselessly criticizing Carter, in the puerile and ridiculous way that he has, asserting a “Carter Reality”. Because fraud promoters have no science to back their assertions, they attack Carter, the accomplished scientist who gave evidence on climate to the United States Senate, and gave expert evidence in the Court case which demolished Gore’s lying video.He has shown that fraud promoters, like yourself, have no science to validate their lies, just as you have demonstrated, donkey, being reduced to refer to the disingenuous, fraudulent Skeptical Science as a reference.
Read Carter's book, "Climate, the Counter Consensus".

"Climate, the Counter Consensus" ... Hahaha, you gotta be kidding!

http://sciblogs.co.nz/hot-topic/2011/04/29/climate-the-counter-consensus/

"This book is a curious read, full of misinformation, straw-man arguments, and poorly-documented assertions"

Maybe you can help me Leo, I'm trying to figure out who has less credibility, Bob Carter or David Icke, actually, I think Icke's lizard men are more believable than Carter's pseudo-science, don't you?

Here's another read for you, unlike Carter's lies, exaggerations and misrepresentations, backed by science ..... from climate scientists.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/beck-to-the-future/

As for John Cook, the bane of people like Carter, well respected, peer reviewed, and a master of debunking the kind of nonsense Carter pushes onto gullible fools like you. Not that there's anything wrong with what he does, if people like you are silly enough to finance him, good on him, no-one of any substance listens to a word he says, so no damage done.

You are lying again, donkey, here is a write up of Robert Carter:
"The only one in that chain at JCU who would always put science before politics was Professor Robert Carter. He was a rare and remarkable man, and I will keenly miss his wisdom and philosophical good nature.
http://joannenova.com.au/2016/01/bob-carter-a-great-man-gone-far-too-soon/

John Cook is not just a failure as a cartoonist.
His failures are generally at science. The failure of his peer reviewed lie about “97% of climate scientists supporting the AGW fraud was just one example of his failure.
“Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis.
These biased, misleading, and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate. And this truly shows how embarrassingly feeble their alarmist theory really is.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#4fe5c7055909

I answered your stupid, invalid question, donkey.
Here are 3 simple questions for you.
1. Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5 per cent since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period? If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
2. Is it the case that the rate and magnitude of warming between 1979 and 1998 (the late 20th century phase of global warming) were not unusual as compared with warmings that have occurred earlier in the Earth’s history? If the warming was not unusual, why is it perceived to have been caused by human CO2 emissions; and, in any event, why is warming a problem if the Earth has experienced similar warmings in the past?
3. Is it the case that all GCM computer models projected a steady increase in temperature for the period 1990-2008, whereas in fact there were only eight years of warming were followed by ten years of stasis and cooling?
https://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/tag/professor-bob-carter/page/2/
No doubt beyond you, or you would not be a fraud promoter

Another positive write up of Professor Carter by an appreciative climate scientist, donkey.
Is there anything you do not have wrong, donkey?
“Professor Carter was a real expert on climate change. He was director of the Australian Office of the Ocean Drilling Program, an international co-operative effort to collect deep sea cores. From these cores, past climates for specific regions have been reconstructed.
We both presented to the Coalition environment committee at Parliament House on October 20 last year. Professor Carter eloquently explained, with examples, how modern temperatures were not unusually warm; that current carbon dioxide levels were low relative to geological time; that as industrial emissions were added to the atmosphere, the less was the “greenhouse” warming effect of each increment of carbon dioxide. Therefore, he concluded, “dangerous warming of this causation will not occur”.
Furthermore, he added, the addition of 50ppm of CO2 for 1981-2010 had fertilised an 11 per cent increase in plant cover. Thus CO2 was both a strong environmental (greening the planet) and agrarian (crop yield increases) benefit.
In this presentation, he also emphasised the importance of the scientific method. “To the extent that it is possible for any human endeavour to be so, science is value-free. Science is a way of attempting to understand the world in which we live from a rational point of view, based on observation, experiment and tested theory. Irritatingly, especially for governments, science does not operate by con¬sensus and it is often best progres¬sed by mavericks. The alternat¬ive to a scientific approach is one based on super¬stition, phobia, religion or politics.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/bob-carter-a-rationalist-critic-of-climate-change/news-story/14e8fdc51917f6756d95508c5f7c5e59

There is a hiatus in the donkey’s flow of lies and dishonesty.
The flow has not stopped, it is just hiding in the oceans, like global warming, as any climate fraud promoter will tell you.

Your embarrassment is hilarious Leo.

Where to start ... your first link is an obituary, hardly an unbiased view, even so, it points out the FACT that his unscientific hogwash got him fired from his professorship.

Here's a better link Leo ...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-12-09/27606

Your second link doesn't work, not that it matters, your sources have one thing in common, irrelevance.

And lastly you link another obituary, they are hardly likely to be anything but glowing, are they. Here's a quote to put your third post in perspective ... "Naturally, I would turn to geologists for advice on brain surgery, dentistry, accounting or religion, but in the field of climate science I lean towards meteorologists."

You are completely out of your depth Leo, you have made up your mind, based on dubious 'science' espoused by self proclaimed experts commenting outside their field of expertise, and there is little hope for you. But you're good for a larf!

Oh, I forgot to add, here is a rebuttal of your 'questions' ....

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Bob_Carter_arg.htm

Have fun disproving that little lot.

You cannot answer the simple questions, can you, donkey? Not only are you too ignorant of the science on which you have the gall to comment, but you refer us to the lies of a failed cartoonist, who runs a lying unscientific, fraud promotion site deceptively named Skeptical Science. It denies the truth, and has no science, and is the donkey’s reference.
Cook is not only a failed cartoonist, he has failed any attempt he has made at science, starting with his peer reviewed paper asserting the support of 97% of climate scientists for the climate fraud. The paper was disproved using the contents of the paper itself.
Pursuant to a lie by the IPCC about a “hotspot” in the troposphere, he made a fool of himself preparing a failed paper on the non-existent “hot spot”:
"How John Cook unskeptically believes in a hotspot (that thermometers can’t find)"
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/06/how-john-cook-unskeptically-believes-in-a-hotspot-that-thermometers-cant-find/
Amusingly, Cook attempted to prove the hotspot, because the IPCC had said it was the “signature” for human caused global warming. After his well publicized failure, he said:” finding the hot spot doesn't prove that humans are causing global warming. “
https://skepticalscience.com/human_fingerprint_cooling_stratosphere.shtml
Besides being a failure, he seems to be mentally lacking, but he is the donkey’s scientific reference. The donkey cannot answer simple questions on science, and neither can Cook.
You have proved without doubt that you have no understanding of science, and only seek advice from liars and incompetents.
There is no science to show a measurable human effect on climate.
I have posted science, which you ignore. You can refer to no science because there is none to support your lies.

Just a reminder of the science which the donkey ignores:
“Given that carbon dioxide is indeed a greenhouse gas (albeit a mild and diminishingly effective one at currently increasing levels of atmospheric concentration), and that some human-caused emissions accrue in the atmosphere, the question of dangerous warming was a good one to raise back in the late 1980s. Since then, with the formation of the IPCC, and a parallel huge expansion of research and consultancy money into climate studies, energy studies and climate policy, an intensive effort has been made to identify and measure the human signature in the global temperature record at a cost that probably exceeds $100 billion. And, as Kevin Rudd might put it, “You know what? No such signature has been able to be isolated and measured.”
That, of course, doesn’t mean that humans have no effect on global temperature, because we know that carbon dioxide is a mild greenhouse gas, and we can also measure the local temperature effects of human activity, which are both warming (from the urban heat island effect) and cooling (due to other land-use change, including irrigation). Sum these effects all over the world and obviously there must be a global signal; that we can’t identify and measure it indicates that the signal is so small that it is lost in the noise of natural climate variation."
http://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2011/5/a-dozen-global-warming-slogans/
Not surprising when you consider that CO2 from human sources is 3% against natures 97%.
This is what the donkey ignores, and refers us to incompetent liars likeCook at Skeptical Science.

Still defending your sacked geologist Leo? It's hilarious how you persist in defending this man, long after everything he has ever said about climate, a subject he has no credibility in, has been proven wrong. He was fired for trying to brainwash students with bad science, lies and unproven suppositions, it was the students at JCU who first objected to him.

And you laughingly push his book .....

"This book is a curious read, full of misinformation, straw-man arguments, and poorly-documented assertions"

It seems unfair to criticise the dearly departed, as he can't defend himself, but then again, he failed to defend himself in life either, so WTF.

You assert that some students were corrupted into supporting the disgraceful behaviour of James Cook University towards Dr.Robert Carter, a leading climate scientist who refused to be corrupted. Did you make that up yourself, donkey?
“Dr. Carter was one of the world’s leading authorities on the science of climate change. He was the author of two books on the subject, Climate: The Counter Consensus (2010) and Taxing Air: Facts and Fallacies about Climate Change (2013) and coauthor of several more, including three volumes in the Climate Change Reconsidered series produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) and published by The Heartland Institute. Shortly before his death he coauthored Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming (2015).
Dr. Carter’s public commentaries drew on his knowledge of the scientific literature and a personal publication list of more than 100 papers in international science journals. His research on climate change, sea-level change and stratigraphy was based on field studies of Cenozoic sediments (last 65 million years) from the Southwest Pacific region, especially the Great Barrier Reef and New Zealand.
Dr. Carter acted as an expert witness on climate change before the U.S. Senate Committee of Environment & Public Works, the Australian and New Zealand parliamentary Select Committees into emissions trading, and in a meeting in parliament house, Stockholm, Sweden. He was also a primary science witness in the Hayes Windfarm Environment Court case in New Zealand, and in the U.K. High Court case of Dimmock v. H.M.’s Secretary of State for Education, the 2007 judgment which identified nine major scientific errors in Mr. Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth.
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/who-we-are/robert-m-carter-1942-2016
What can you say about the liars and failures from which you source your unscientific disingenuous nonsense, donkey?
Your lies about Carter are baseless and pathetic. Your support of the climate fraud is baseless and scurrilous. You have no science to show any human caused measurable effect on climate. I have posted the science on this. You have no science, have you, donkey?

Carter was NOT a climate scientist, he had NO qualifications to call himself a climate scientist, any more than you do. I know students from JCU Townsville as I was often there during my time at JCU in Cairns, and I can assure you geology students, or Earth science students as they are now known, often complained about his off topic ramblings, finally leading to his being released.

To be fair to the man, when he stuck to his field of expertise he was very well respected, but he used his position to push his nonsense into a sphere he was not qualified to comment on, and which has ALL been comprehensively debunked.

Your lies about Carter, donkey, are baseless and pathetic.
I am well aware that the main lie told about Carter by ignorant, lying, fraud supporters, like yourself, is hat he is not a climate scientist.
There is no answer to his science, so fraud supporters make scurrilous attacks on Carter himself.
The U>S> Senate apparently did not make enquiries from lying ignoramuses, like you, before they accepted his sworn testimony on climate. You might have made the difference to his being accepted by the Court as an expert witness on Gore’s spurious climate change film, if anyone listened to your baseless lies.
Surely your nonsense does not even fool yourself, donkey. You have proved that you have no credibility.
Robert Carter was a world renowned climate scientist, unless you accept the word of a lying ignoramus, like the donkey, who has demonstrated his lack of science, and his complete disregard for the truth.
donkey even referred to Skeptical Science as a scientific reference.A lying, fraud promotion site, of no scientific credibility.
You cannot be more dishonest and disreputable than that.
Fraud promoters have no answer to Carter's science:
"Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%.
Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. Hypothesis fails.
.
4. The The null hypothesis – because it is the simplest consistent with the known facts – is that global climate changes are presumed to be natural, unless and until specific evidence is forthcoming for human causation.
So far, no evidence has been presented to disprove the null hypothesis"
They have no science, so tell scurrilous lies about Carter, like the donkey's stupid lie that Carter had been debunked.

Well done, Leo. You have spent more time on that clown Billyd than he is worth. Just expunge him from your consciousness, as I have tried to do, though that's difficult when he is such a malicious hoaxer, but while he deserves to be humiliated, he is too vacant and ignorant to realise when he has been well and truly done over.

Unbelievable, in your vain attempts to bring credibility to the disgraceful, discredited, sham science of the dismissed geologist Bob Carter you quote ..... Bob Carter!

You couldn't make this up!

The poor man must be turning in his grave.

PS: Please supply qualifications that legitimise your claim that the geologist Bob Carter was a climate scientist.

"Though you wouldn’t know it from the antagonistic nature of public discussions about global warming, a large measure of scientific agreement and shared interpretation exists amongst nearly all scientists who consider the issue. The common ground, much of which was traversed by Dr. Hayhoe in her article, includes:

* that climate has always changed and always will,
* that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and warms the lower atmosphere,
* that human emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere,
* that a global warming of around 0.5OC occurred in the 20th century, but

* that global warming has ceased over the last 15 years."

So, on the last, and contentious, part of that piece, that global warming has ceased since 1998, no-one agrees, and debunking it is easy ...

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/debunking-the-persistent-myth-that-global-warming-stopped-in-1998-20130927-2ui8j.html

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527-climate-myths-global-warming-stopped-in-1998/

http://grist.org/article/global-warming-stopped-in-1998/

So now, we can completely dismiss the myth that global warming stopped in 1998, as once again the last year was the hottest on record. So where does that leave the above piece?

"Though you wouldn’t know it from the antagonistic nature of public discussions about global warming, a large measure of scientific agreement and shared interpretation exists amongst nearly all scientists who consider the issue. The common ground, much of which was traversed by Dr. Hayhoe in her article, includes:

* that climate has always changed and always will,
* that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and warms the lower atmosphere,
* that human emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere,
* that a global warming of around 0.5OC occurred in the 20th century."

Not much controversy there, in fact, take away the lie and he's close to the mark, but that doesn't sell books, does it? Maybe you should try quoting Dr Hayhoe instead, Leo.

So give in Leo, you're on a loser mate, take up knitting or something constructive, you're too much of a sheep for these type of discussions.

Back again, donkey. Have you lost track of the discussion, or using your usual dishonest tactics to distract from the topic.
You have no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
You give the lying, unscientific fraud promoting site, Skeptical Science, as a reference for science, which means you have no science to reference.
You have no credibility, no science, and no sense. Global warming did stop in 1998 for about 20 years, disproving the projections of the fraud promoters, like yourself. Any resumption of warming does not alter that fact, so your irrelevant references only reminds us of what an ignoramus you are. You have no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
Dr. Carter has shown your assertions to be nonsense, so you assert lies about Professor Carter, because you can find no flaw in his science.
You can stop now, donkey. You have convinced us that you are a delusional fool, and there is no further or other outcome can result from your pathetic efforts.
There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, is there, donkey?

A good concise description of the site that the donkey has the gall to give as a “scientific” reference:
” Skeptical Science is a climate alarmist website created by a self-employed cartoonist, John Cook (who apparently pretends to be a Nazi). It is moderated by zealots who ruthlessly censor any and all form of dissent from their alarmist position. This way they can pretend to win arguments, when in reality they have all been refuted. The abuse and censorship does not pertain to simply any dissenting commentator there but to highly credentialed and respected climate scientists as well; Dr. Pielke Sr. has unsuccessfully attempted to engage in discussions there only to be childishly taunted and censored, while Dr. Michaels has been dishonestly quoted and smeared. The irony of the site's oxymoronic name "Skeptical Science" is that the site is not skeptical of even the most extreme alarmist positions.

John Cook is now desperately trying to cover up his background that he was employed as a cartoonist for over a decade with no prior employment history in academia or climate science.

Thanks to the Wayback Machine we can reveal what his website originally said,

"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science
http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/03/truth-about-skeptical-science.html

Yes, Leo, you're right, he's not a scientist, but, unlike Bob Carter, he doesn't pretend to be. He also doesn't post scientific articles, he does exactly what he says, he and his associates debunk bad science, like Bob Carters. They do it by researching what REAL climate scientists have to say, and then link to their work.

Bob Carter was a geologist. If you want historical facts about climate over millions of years, he's your man. But his expertise does not cover present day climate, because what happened millions of years ago is irrelevant to man made global warming.

There really is no hope for people like you, you keep repeating the lie that global temperatures haven't risen since 1998, plainly and demonstrably wrong. You also seem confused; you claim global warming is only 3% man made, at the same time claiming it is immeasurable, but if it's immeasurable, how can you claim it's 3%? Where is your scientific proof that it's 3%, post a link to this scientific work you get your information from, and not another quote from Bob Carter or his ilk, a PROPER scientific study.

I see Calwest has popped back in, after being caught out quoting a writer whose mission it is to convince governments to increase fossil fuel use. You couldn't make it up!

Unlike you, donkey, I usually link to proof of what I say, but it is generally known and acknowledged that global warming stopped for 20 years, as any ignoramus would know.
To be more precise, it stopped in 1994 for 22 years:
“Since September 1994, University of Alabama in Huntsville’s satellite temperature data has shown no statistically significant global warming trend. For over 20 years there’s been no warming trend apparent in the satellite records and will soon be entering into year 22 with no warming trend apparent in satellite data — which examines the lowest few miles of the Earth’s atmosphere.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/17/satellites-earth-is-nearly-in-its-21st-year-without-global-warming/#ixzz4Uz8QoVCB

NOAA has been hiding data which proves 60 years with no warming:”The omission of this data from the NOAA report, is just their latest attempt to defraud the public. NOAA’s best data shows no warming for 60 years. But it gets worse. The graph in the NOAA report shows about 0.5C warming from 1979 to 2010, but their original published data shows little warming during that time.
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/03/noaa-radiosonde-data-shows-no-warming-for-58-years/
I never claimed that the human contribution to global warming is 3%. Are you lying again or just stupid. There is no measurable human effect on climate.

http://billmoyers.com/2014/05/16/eight-pseudo-scientific-climate-claims-debunked-by-real-scientists/

Really Leo, haven't you learned your lesson yet? Check the credibility of your sources before you make a fool of yourself, again. Just because a site calls itself realclimatescience does not mean it is, and the piece you linked to was written by another geologist, NOT a climate scientist. Tony Heller, aka Steven Goddard, is an open joke amongst REAL climate scientists.

And the Daily Caller, really? Are you serious? That rag is in the same league as the National Enquirer.

You couldn't make this up!