ChrisC” You can't claim such a vast conspiracy of both government and industry scientist,”

I am not claiming any “conspiracy”. If you bothered to follow the text of comments, you would see,
I was disputing the assertion by Latimer that “This is not scepticism. It’s a parallel universe!”

Clearly we have established that such fraud does exist, not only in this “universe” but on this very “planet” and that Latimer if anyone, is the “bunkum artist”.

As his own response admits “Universities investigate misconduct and can take action. They do not need my help.”

I assume he refers to universities in this universe and not the universities of “parallel universe”, in which case I will acknowledge his complete and utter climb down as apology.

As for "I care that the truth is being smeared. Does anyone else?"

Clearly that is simply more pretentious bunkum. A person with any regard for the truth would accept, graciously, when he has corrupted it and clearly we are describing things which exist in this universe.

A more graceful spirit would have had character sufficient to leave his unfinished responses in a better state than he has done. That he lacks such character speaks volumes.

Graham Young asks the question: "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."

Instead of providing some insight, Tim Lambert again falsely suggests that Graham Young is some how hiding his Liberal party connection because he only states at the staff page that:

"He ...has extensive experience in business and politics."
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=staff

It is at his authors page that he elaborates stating that:

"He ...is a former vice-president and campaign chairman of the Queensland Liberal Party."
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=3

Graham tells us much about what motivates him at the staff page:

"On Line Opinion arose out of his perception that politically Australia was becoming a less civil and engaged society and that there was a need for a journal which published a wide range of views and encouraged a questioning approach to social policy and current affairs."

And also in his various pieces including 'Why On Line Opinion Hasn't Published Those Cartoons' which can be read here
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4149

In stark contrast to Graham's open approach, Tim Lambert gives the impression he is only interested in science, yet on closer examination the motivation for his writings could be political?

Tim Lambert refuses to give some insight into what motivates his always vicious and very personal attacks on those who dare to question the big myths of our time.

Jennifer joins forces with Graham Young to attack Tim Lambert. I would have thought Graham was intelligent enough to carry his own attack. And Tim is vulnerable on a number of points.

Graham and Jennifer attack Tim Lambert for attacking Graham Young's motivation - by themselves attacking Tim Lambert's motivation.

Anyone else find that incongruous, or just stunning hypocrisy?

Hi Perseus,

I'm getting sick of this thread, so this will be my last response. You can have the last word.

Judged on your response, I think you may need to re-read the report.

Firstly, you seem to think that the NS did not take into account vertical mixing. As I stated in my last post, they DID! Check out the graph on page 10 from Caldeira and Wickett 2003. They have simulated, using a General Circulation Model, pH changes to a depth of 4km.

Your claim that pH values were overstated by 400% doesn't really make sense given that more advanced oceanic modelling was used (icluding eddies from the Gulf stream and Humbolt currents).

What the RS did say is that pH values will be considerably higher in surface waters, and it will take hundreds, or even thousands of years to transfer to the depths.

Secondly, your claim that reduction in pH had been modeled ("based on flawed assumptions") is wrong. In actual fact, the pH had been both modelled and measured. For example, page 9 states:

"Based upon current measurements of ocean pH, analysis of CO2concentration in ice cores, our understanding of the rate of CO2absorption and retention in the surface oceans, and knowledge of the CaCO3buffer (Section 2.2.2), it is possible to calculate that the pH of the surface oceans was 0.1 units higher in pre-industrial times (Caldeira & Wickett 2003; Key et al 2004). This 0.1 pH change over about the past 200 years corresponds to about a 30% increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions."

This has been verified by models. Also see page vi, and the map on page 8, that indicates more measurements of pH.

If you could find some scientific criticsms of the report, please point them out.

Frank, And the original article by computer scientist Tim Lambert was an attack on journalist Andrew Bolt about an article never published by OLO reviewing a movie about a powerpoint presentation by former politician Al Gore in which Gore claims that there is a global climate crisis right now which can only be solved if we all work to stop climate change including by driving hybrid cars.

Response to Col Rouge:
To answer my question "Who are these profit-hungry scientists?", you respond there is a scientist who researches a crazy solar-energy absorbing vegan.

On "Monday, 13 March 2006" (OLO thread 4212) you wrote: [A]cademics are employees of universities or CSIRO or other institutions. Employees don’t get to share the reward available to the true entrepreneur but of course they do not take the same risks."

But above, 23 January 2007, you write about the same employees being rewarded with "get a patent or two out of the public funded research to retire on." Your own words prove you wrong.

Then 26 January 2007: "it all depends on the timing of the patent and whether it can be construed to be associated with 'public' funds, regardless that they came from a public source."

What does this mean? It is the suggestion that scientists are ready themselves to act criminally and immorally to defraud their own universities and institutes to get rich.

This is indeed a new world -- one where those who aspire to the highest ideals of public service act in contempt of the community trust and the true rewards of scientific endeavour.

By sounding the alarm bells, scientists have (perhaps naively) assumed their call to action, based upon the principles which have given us modern civiliation, would be easily distinguished from the left-right political divide.

For those left behind, their last refuge is to use word-games (eg Bolt), red herrings and personal attacks. Col Rouge tries to discredit the whole academic establishment. Never before has scientific sceptisism, which ensures reliable research, been so exploited and misrepresented eg GrahameY's claims about the Hulme/Jones abstract.

Responsible conservative politicians recognise the objectivity and consensus of the scientific community. They do identify with the moral imperative of this call.

Today's debate is how to find the best solution. Carbon Trading? Sequestration? Base Loads? Nuclear Power? Economic side-effects? Solar Cities? Developing Nations? Public Transport? Demand Management? Green Power? .... and many more areas.