Tim your whole approach is to try to confuse issues, not to illuminate them, and to smear people who disagree with you. You said that Peiser had withdrawn his criticism - something which can be easily verified. He hasn't. He has only withdrawn his initial criticism which was based on the bad information that Oreskes provided. I didn't "refuse to believe" Media Watch - I checked their information, which any half-decent researcher would do.

The issue is whether Gore's claim was correct. It wasn't. A plain reading of the abstract that I found indicates that it is skeptical of global warming. Just for the record I'll replay the quote: "Such detailed diagnostic climate information is a necessary, although not sufficient, prerequisite for the detection of global-scale warming which may have occurred due to the enhanced greenhouse effect". It's there in plain English, and to dismiss it by saying Peiser didn't find it is hardly a refutation.

You're still avoiding the issue of why you credited the Liberal Party with a position that it doesn't have, and why you think members of the Liberal Party are automatons!

The most interesting thing to come out of this debate is "What makes Tim Lambert tick"? What makes a computer scientist at UNSW with limited scientific and analytical skills set up a blog to take-on others on the issue of climate change. Why does he see political motive behind everything? It would seem to me that it's much more likely that you have a political end than me - afterall, I publish from both sides, but you run a propaganda site.

Enlighten us Tim.

GrahamY, do you now concede that Peiser told Media Watch that there was only one abstract that disputed the consensus? If so, since he originally claimed that there were 34, does it not follow that my statement: "Peiser has admitted his analysis was full of errors." is, far from being "deeply dishonest" as you contend, 100% accurate?

The Hulme and Jones abstract isn't even relevant to the preceding paragraph. Even if it disputed the consensus (it doesn't), Peiser still admitted to many mistakes in classifying abstracts.

Hulme and Jones does not dispute the consensus. You seem to be the only person who believes that it does. Oreskes did not think so. Peiser did not think so. Chris O'Neill does not think so (see comment up thread). And I really doubt that Mike Hulme, who was a lead author on the IPCC Third Assessment Report which sort of defines the consensus, thinks it does. But feel free to email him.

You ducked my question: How come the page about the editors of OLO does not mention your Liberal Party insider role?

I'll be happy to answer one of your questions about me if you answer my question about you.

Richard Castles, I'm surprised that you don't care that the Stern critique got the science wrong. As for sharing data and methodologies, that's a beat up. Michael Mann has published his data and methods, which is enough to replicate his results and several researchers have done this. He doesn't want to give out the computer programs that implement those methods. I wish he would, but scientists are often very competitive.

Perhaps, Melbournian writer is right: it does not matter what privileged to be paid for their theories think-it is a matter what is really going on.

Al Gore movie is a perfect example on the titanic collating of a particular data top bureaucrat had got access to as his conclusions are right just for a one narrow clause: climate is really changing; even the royal pets noticed it at Balmoral as understood from media

ChrisC, the RS modelling was over intervals of several centuries so why should they be excused for not including mixing that takes this long. And if 50% of CO2 is in waters shallower than 400m then, clearly, 50% of CO2 is found in waters deeper than 400m. So a decision to assume that CO2 is only mixed in the top 100m of ocean is plain silly.

It is also painfully obvious that if CO2 is mixing in a 400m water column instead of a 100 metre column then the actual concentration of CO2 in that water will only be 25% of the result for a 100m column. That is, the modelled concentration of acidification is overstated by 400%.

It should also be noted that the acidification that has been claimed to have already taken place over the past 100 years is a purely modelled outcome, based on the same false assumptions.

Tim Lambert, speaking of dodging questions, how 'bout you answer my "yes" or "no" question from above: Does your hearsay evidence, that global warming induced sea level change is forcing Tuvaluans to flee to New Zealand, constitute proof of this being the case? If yes, do you accept the accounts of alien "abductees" as proof that aliens are visiting earth?

Also, since you wrote this post the World Meteorological Organization issued (Nov 2006) a consensus statement on AGW and tropical cyclones. Point 1 from the statement summary:

"Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point."

http://www.wmo.ch/web/arep/press_releases/2006/iwtc_summary.pdf

So, it seems Bolt's point 8 is correct. Perhaps you should issue a correction -- at your blog you suggest those who so much as linked to Khilyuk and Chilingar issue corrections, so it only seems fair.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/01/the_khilyuk_and_chilingar_test.php

Response to GrahamY:

Out of all the 1994 abstracts you site Hulme/Jones: 'Global Climate Change in the Instrumental Period.' This is astounding!

According to its abstract this paper, in part, "establish[es] the variability of climate on the time-scale of decades, time-scales upon which it is reasonable to plan economic and socio-political activities." Economic and social-political activities are a reference to efforts by humankind to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions. With respect to Oreskes survey, this report supports the anthropogenic global warming consensus. It belongs in the 75% group.

Any others? But please read them first. I have now checked about 300 abstracts. Oreskes has climbed in my esteem and while Pieser's effort is worthy of infamy.

BTW I don't agree that Tim should worry about your Liberal Party connections. Scientific evidence is neither right or left. Climate change must be tackled regardless of our politics.

Response to BBgun:
We should be well aware of Bolt’s tricks. They are obvious. The Bolt says: “America has this year had fewer hurricanes than usual.” Does that change the fact 2005 had the most active US hurricane season ever recorded?

Gore is supported by the WMO report you have referenced. It says that it “is likely that some increase in tropical cyclone peak wind-speed and rainfall will occur if the climate continues to warm. Model studies and theory project a 3-5% increase in wind-speed per degree Celsius increase of tropical sea surface temperatures.”

The WMO is also concerned that if “the projected rise in sea level due to global warming occurs, then the vulnerability to tropical cyclone storm surge flooding would increase.”

Like all good summaries, the WMO report provides a balanced report, explaining what is believed and/or understood and the limitations on that understanding. This is a fair report, but your quotation is on the limitations. It does not doubt anthropogenic global warming.

Once again the careful objectivity of scientific work is cherry-picked and politicized. The confidence we have in science is being eroded, not because the results and conclusions are wrong, but because they are right.