These two sentences are wrong together "Roman Warming, the Dark Ages, the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age. Both history and archaeology show that in previous warmings, temperatures were far higher than at present" The problem with this is that yes temperatures were at times warmer but not in human history. Roman warming was cooler than now and it is likely it was caused by the clearing of woodland in order to grow grain to sustain the Roman empire. The temperature does change through volcanoes and asteroids and continental drift. Last time it was truley warmer some of the atmosphere and oceans became poisonous.

What climate change skeptics should focus on is why did atmospheric scientists assasinate JFK ? A nuclear war is good for human health why are we being lied to? The world is flat lets stop this madness of sending sailors blindly to the edge. Where is Noahs Ark?

Because what the climate change skeptic is arguing is that breathing in exhaust fumes has no consequence to our health and polluting the atmosphere has no impact on the environment. Climate change aside these things are measured and impacts recorded by scientists and health carers. Sounds like some people are still peeved at the banning of back yard incinerators, certainly many pollution skeptic authors think their ridiculous conspiracy theories are some how clever. Some industry groups have no morality to excersise and have deemed greed justifies anything.

EclipseNow, you will need to still forgive me for assuming you are in a permanent state of eclipse, although it looks like you have now found our sunnyboy at wiki. Wacko! At that wiki site, use your high school English education and notice that chart showing the Little Ice Age 1560 - 1830 with the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period on the sun in which there were practically no sunspots at all.... It is explained quite well here as a global phenomenon ... notice in the lead up to the MM an erratic solar cycle.
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm

However, you continue with this funny stuff ....... “I'm glad you accept the glaring fact that solar energy decreased post 2000” — of course referring to the king-hit against solar being the main driver of climate. Namely… Temperatures continue to RISE Solar insolation has in fact DECREASED"

Are you assuming our lovely earth is in thermodynamic equilibrium with sunnyboy? Just seems your problem is typical of greenhousers ..... alarmism.

Kieran you’ve quoted a sailor & economist against the thousands of fully-trained, professional, life-long climatologists that report on Global Warming. These are all thoroughly trained scientists trying to sceptically debunk each others work and make a name for themselves — yet some how mysteriously they all missed the climatology insights of an economics teacher turned science hack.

In my experience, economists have led governments up the garden path on a number of scientific issues. Economists seem skeptical that any natural limits will ever DARE impede any of their precious economic models.

Even Daly’s obituary tries to put a positive spin on his lack of training. "Although self-taught, John was a gifted scientist.”
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/special/dalyobit.html

Hmmm. I come from a humanities background, and even I’ve had an article published on peak oil — a scientific matter. It’s easy to get published if you make enough noise, so just because this guy published an article or 2 doesn’t mean he’s an “authority”.

The website you quote is a sad tribute to a man who died after wasting the last decade of his life debunking AGW as his hobby. Maybe he did some good in asking some “Devil’s advocate” questions, but presenting him as a hero of reason against a tide of irrational hysteria is wrong.

Why believe one economist over the 11 thousand scientists who signed a letter of concern to George Bush? I get it… only someone who isn’t trained in science but as a sailor and economist can “see clearly” through the IPCC trickery to reality. What a crock!

Daly’s arguments are debunked by a CSIRO researcher below.
http://people.aapt.net.au/~johunter/greenhou/home.html

Regular climate science — with CO2 as one of many climate drivers — can easily accommodate the Maunder Minimum (over which there is still much debate).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum#Little_Ice_Age

But quite frankly, Durkin and Daly’s single solar forcing theory completely fails to explain INCREASING global temperatures with DECREASING solar activity.

"Solar cycles lead to a small increase of 0.07 percent in brightness over the last 30 years. This effect is far too minute to contribute significantly to global warming.[28][29]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming#Solar_variation

One last try on the Maunder Minimum.

It is a known scientific principle that one has to test all variables. Correlation does not prove causation. In legal terms, “Post hoc ergo propter hoc.” The actual mechanism of causal events between sun-spot inactivity during the Maunder Minimum and the actual cooling of the time has not been properly spelt out yet. A study as recent as 2004 casts doubt on this link.

See The Atmosphere: An introduction to Meteorology by Lutgens, F and Tarbuck, E. (Prentice Hall).
http://tinyurl.com/2kx6cu

I’ll try spell it out one last time…

2005 hottest year
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming#Recent

2005 lowest solar cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

If you are going to argue the Maunder Minimum and apparently support Durkin, are you going to offer a decent explanation for the above incongruity? Come on mate, after writing the following…

“Frankly, I agree with Ian's thoughts about science and particularly that we should be seriously embarrassed with the manner in which our national broadcaster handled this doco. It points to weak people, a weak media and an outcome where science faces a diminishing role in public policy.”

… surely I am allowed to be sceptical of your theory if it doesn’t fit the most accurate data we have from the spunkiest new equipment? Surely this is a glaring factoid that requires better explanation from Durkinites than “I don’t want to talk about it, instead… here, look at the Maunder Minimum”.

"Alzo, oh AAAAAAAllllllllzzoooooooooo.
Where are you?"
I see Eclipse Now has been busy filling the forum with rubbish while I have been on holidays. I've had a lovely few days on the coast burning some fossil fuels...

"I thought you were going to back up your claim that solar forcings could be delayed by 20 to 30 years through some kind of as yet unidentified mechanism."
A bit hard to back up something that is unidentified isn't it? I don't buy the single-forcing model as you put it. Which is also why I don't accept the "CO2 did it" story either.

Lags happen every day with solar forcings, so why not with climate? The maximum radiation from the Sun is received near noon, the maximum daily temperatures are obtained a few hours later in the afternoon. The same lag effect occurs with the winter solstice. The southern hemisphere reaches its seasonal solar minimum on June 21, yet the coldest days are not until July. Here are 2 very obvious solar lags present in out system due to thermal inertia and yet you dismiss out of hand the possibility of lags in the climate system.

Divergence between temperature and CO2 has occurred as well. Between 1940 and 1975 global temperatures dropped while CO2 was really being pumped into the atmosphere. Faced with this divergence the hysterics came up with "global dimming" and "it would be whole lot warmer if wasn't for this cooling thing". This might be believable if it wasn't for the fact that most aerosols are still being produced in the Northern Hemisphere (esp. China) at much the same level as 1940-1975, this is where most "dimming" should occur, yet this is where the greatest increases in temperature are being seen (in fact there has hardly been any warming in the southern hemisphere). There is also a bit of a divergence happening right now as CO2 emissions continue to rise, global temperatures are in stasis (maybe even slightly falling).

Eclipse Now, with all due respect – get on with your life.

There are more important things than trying to convince recalcitrant pseudo-scientists here on “On Line Opinion” who think they know more than genuine experts in climate science, oceanography, palaeobiogeochemistry, atmospheric physics, etc combined.

OLO ‘wanabe’ scientists like Alzo and Keiran et-al will not confront the genuine scientists directly with their musings (and that is what they are). These intransigents will often only spruik the dogma found on well known “denialist” websites to anyone that will engage (as you seem to be doing).

This is problematic as I and others appreciate you mean well. However, by entering into dialogue with the obstinate you are giving them further opportunity to distort and misrepresent the science. For the layperson, this is confusing and gives the impression that not even “the experts” agree – which is far from the truth because there is wide agreement.

As an aside, I found it very revealing that not one OLO global warming ‘sceptic’ had anything to say about Guy Pearse’s book ‘High and Dry’ (previously posted). I have just finished reading it and it exposes much about the policies of the current government and the groups and people who have their ear (and funding carrot) on matters concerning climate change. An extract can be found here:

http://www.highanddry.com.au/extract.cfm

Our problem is not really about the science, but the power and control games of politicians and vested interest groups in maintaining the status quo, whose mantra is deny and delay at all costs.