Richard and David are right that the Mann hockey-stick work and similar proxy compilations are discredited.

Those who wish to continue to argue the point should reflect on an even more fundamental criticism of the Mann approach than statistical validity or invalidity.

And that is the utter inadequacy of trying to make any inferences about CLIMATE change over periods as short as a few hundred to a thousand years.

The main problem with the Mann work has always been its inadequacy in this regard, to which is now added statistical incompetence.

Judgements about climate change need to be made over periods of tens to hundreds of thousands to millions of years. Within the natural rhythmns of climate that operate on these scales, the late 20th century warming is unusual in neither magnitude nor rate.

Given that Mann's work has never offered any insight into the real processes of longterm climate change, it is unclear why his defenders continue to press the point.

Cathy

To start, I will defend Prof. Carters ARC grant. Such grants are issued by the Australian government to numerous research groups and are a vital part of ensuring that top quality scientific research is conducted at Australia's university and public institutions. Unlike industry grants, they are generally not biased in any way, and the terms of research are very broad. Prof Carter should be congratulated for receiving such a grant and the government pressured into releasing more.

But that is about all I will defend Prof. Carter on. I quote:
"For conference organiser, Professor Peter Stilbs, had taken care to invite speakers with a diverse range of views,"

This is good for debate and good for science, but in no way reflects the current consensus on the state of climate change.

If I was to sample a random group of people and ask if they prefer chocolate or vannilla ice cream, I'm sure chocolate would be the winner. But the results would be very if I chose a 50-50 split of known vanilla and chocolate ice-cream lovers. While they could debate the merits of each flavour at length, this would not in any way reflect the consensus that exists.

As for the hockey stick. First, I will remined people of the name of MBH1998 paper:

Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations

The uncertainties in the reconstruction were acknowleged by the authors immediatly. However, I find this point a little redundant, given that so much more research has been conducted on this topic, and the MBH article is not the last word on the temperature record. A link is provided on the real climate blog:
www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/02/dummies-guide-to-the-latest-hockey-stick-controversy/

the Wegman report is not without its critics. eg:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/07/the-missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/

One particular critism by Wegman: "there is too much reliance on peer review" I find almost laughable.

I don't mean to say the science is perfect. Far from it. But the evidence is compelling and there does appear to be some kind of consensus on the topic. A good article is here
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg18524861.400

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/t...e_meltdown.html

Sea ice falling by six percent in the past two winters compared to only a 1.5 percent decline each decade since satellite imaging began in 1979? That's big, and it is actually frightening. What the hell has to happen before people realize that we have to really start getting our act together? I'm sick of skeptics who continue to work to cover up the truth because they either are defending a governmment entity that needs to cover itself, or those defending special interests. This is real, and no amount of papers one way or the other is going to stop it unless we do.

Bob Carter “That such models can mimic the elapsed temperature curve over the past 100 years does not constitute “evidence”.”

I have spent a lot of time building computer models, admittedly commercial models, not climate models.

The “absoluteness” of outcomes, especially when dealing with the finest limits of change, which these “experts” place on their “models” shows them to be a complete crock of rubbish.

I reckon you would be lucky if you get within 0.02 - 0.03 correlation (2-3%) to actuality with any modeling process. No doubt, feed back based on a few buoys bouncing around the ocean is subject to the same vagaries of accuracy, technical defects and failures exempted.

There is a line which goes “lies, damn lies and statistics”.

In this instance, bearing in mind the considerable amount of public funds available for research into this area, the statistics are flowing fast and furious.

Simply because the “Statistics” are there does not mean projections based on them accurately correlate to what might happen and the likelihood of accuracy reduces with every additional million dollars of available research funding.

Thanks for the insight Bob, the article blows a big hole in Al Gores reasoning, which, based on his political career, was “suspect” anyway.

JayM “Sea ice falling by six percent in the past two winters compared to only a 1.5 percent decline each decade since satellite imaging began in 1979?”

Lack of data is never a good basis for modeling world wide trends.

It’s a bit like basing predictions of general life expectancy on a small sample of folk coming in and out of the cancer wing of a hospital. The resultant analysis would produce results leading to mass hysteria.

I'm sitting here in mid October in a 35 degree 'spring' rip-snorter, stripped to my layman's shorts trying to recall if I heard the precautionary principle mentioned in Dr Carter's dissent or readers' posts. I'll forego the air conditioning having added a second shadecloth awning over sun bearing shuttered windows. All grey water has been diverted. All potted trees have been super-sized. Property being heritage listed I'm prevented going all out solar. Contemplating moving underground. Want me to keep some cave space for you Bob?

You smart-arses had better be right about the falseness of AL Gore's Message of Global Warming.

Please all give your names and addresses to our WA Greens Party and WA Democrats to keep them in posterity for my great-great grandkids to read and remember.