"That question is how truthful and well tested is your hypothesis?"

Col Rouge. I do not offer any hypotheses. I am merely the messenger and I derive much of my long-term officially documented information from those who are employed by this nation as experts to manage the Australian environment.

In addition, I regularly peruse industrial emissions' reports where the analytical contents have been provided by NATA accredited laboratories. Alas, those types of mathematical equations would simply be too complex for you to ingest.

"The fact is the majority of the work done on climate change is still up for review and revision."

Ah yes and thank you for that revelation Col Rouge. If you ever ceased being right up yourself, you would realise that I have not debated climate change or global warming.

Certainly my criticisms have been directed at the "deniers." Not because, they, like you, deny that GW is anthropogenic but because, they, like you, purposely fail to publicly acknowledge that fossil fuels and other hazardous industrial emissions are destroying our fragile ecosystems and human health.

Additionally, I will continue to alert readers to those deniers who are recipients of funding from pollutant industries, and who distort the facts and misquote those scientists who warn of the environmental consequences from man-made hazardous emissions.

Industrial pollution cares not whether there is global warming or an ice-age. These hazards remain destructive either way. Jennifer et al are well aware of this dilemma, however, an honest acknowledgement certainly would not suit their immoral agenda for fiscal domination.

One finds most tedious, your unrelated and shonky trial balance estimates, your inaccurate profit and loss rants, third rate creative accounting and your hysterics over the totally irrelevant references to Mao's Chinese peasants.

Is there the slightest possibility that we may, in the near future, derive from your tirades, something that is remotely environmentally scientific?

Jennifer (on topic?)

Spencer says, “I am not claiming that all of our recent warming is natural. But the extreme reluctance for most scientists to even entertain the possibility that some of it might be natural suggests to me that climate research has become corrupted.”

Bollocks. Find a scientist that says natural variability doesn't impact on climate change. He is the one being sloppy by this nefarious distortion.

____________________________

Keiran (off topic?)

I ask questions, I seek answers.

So, you like raw data and going to the primary source?

Try the 40/50 year data set (Centre for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies) of monthly upper ocean heat content (HC) used to study the inter-annual variability in the tropical Indian Ocean.

The data is produced by an ocean assimilation system using a comprehensive set of in-situ measurements of SST to vertically profile upper ocean temperatures.

Col, you’re a “healthy sceptic” in the scientific sense, what do you think?

You can see an inter-annual oscillation with short time scales in the tropical Indian Ocean. It is associated with equatorial HC anomalies propagating from the eastern-central Indian Ocean and maintained in the western Indian Ocean south of the equator in response to wind anomalies along the equator and in the southern ocean.

The Equatorial Indian Ocean Oscillation (EQUINOO) is connected to the Pacific El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) through global shifts of the Walker Circulation cells.

However, there is a long-term modulation to the EQUINOO. The period of the oscillation was relatively short in the 60s and 70s, demonstrating stronger biennial features. However, it has grown longer recently. Why?

Using NCEP data, analyse the atmospheric circulation patterns associated with different regions of the EQUINOO. You might note, although the leading modes of surface-wind and precipitation are consistent with that of the HC, the SST pattern is different. Why?

The change of thermocline depth mainly affects SST fluctuations near the equator. The SST variations in the subtropics are mainly driven by coupled surface/atmosphere heat flux differentials.

Ruminate over Easter and open another thread.

Col (and Keiran) – yes, I am being arrogant and patronising, can you understand why?

This thread was a discussion of Jennifer's article but it now appears to have veered off onto off-topic discussion of circulation patterns and ad hominem attacks.

Dickie, if you don't understand the science and just want to cherry pick scientists who agree with you and then quote them without understanding them, then why are you posting on this thread rather than sitting back and trying to understand the arguments? We won't progress the argument if participants are going to just argue from authority and smear others because they may have received funding from organisations with a financial stake in an issue.

Both the sceptics and the alarmists receive funding from organisations with a financial interest in them being right, not to mention the fact that they earn salaries and gain promotions for being right. That's the way the world works.

Q&A, what do you mean "Walker Circulation cells"? There's only one that I'm aware of. Can you explain in clear terms what it is you are trying to say and what bearing it has on Spencer's work?

GrahamY

My guess is that Q&A is alluding to the fact that evidence for agw has come independently from a broad range of scientific disciplines. Spencer's hypothesis would not be in agreement with this evidence if correct. And I hope it is correct, given that climatic inertia means that the full effect of today's CO2 emissions wont be apparent for another thirty years or so.

There is one climatic effect that is strongly attributable to human activity. It is the contraction of the Antarctic vortex, which has resulted in a significant change to the Southern Australian climate. It has resulted both from the effect of ozone depleting gases and global warming. So even if you were to deny a human contribution to global warming, would you agree that humans are at least partly responsible for this climatic effect?

"Dickie, if you don't understand the science and just want to cherry pick scientists who agree with you and then quote them without understanding them, then why are you posting ..........?

Nice try Graham Young

Answer a question with a question and display a pitiful attempt to distort truth. Who are these "scientists who agree with me" Graham? I'd like to meet them. Who are the "scientists I am quoting?"

When you and Jennifer avoid answering a question in a debate , you are not only evincing flawed reasoning, but also violating basic principles of discussion. If you prefer to take a whack at me, you need to be willing to also address my comments, concerns, and queries. If you don’t, then it’s no longer a two-way exchange of information and views.

Instead, on 17/3, you made an unprovoked attack on my contribution:

"In fact, the last argument is a pretty sure marker of someone who is just cheer leading, and who is therefore by definition, not motivated by a deep or genuine interest in the truth of the matter."

Very feeble Graham. If I were to call you a fascist, I would need to support that accusation with something substantial. You have failed the first rule of debate by going after me with obfuscation and avoidance.

It is obvious that all the articles you have placed on your forum are predominantly political and have nothing to do with environmental matters - or have they?

Q&A kindly excused you claiming you are a journalist on a fact-finding mission. That I don't accept and I believe you are a sceptic.

If one was to advise that you were once a property developer, I would be more inclined to accept that.

My contribution here is on the chemical reactions of carbon dioxide, which is entirely appropriate for the topic. Do you understand the science of CO2 Graham?

If you and Jennifer are unwilling or unable to respond to my questions of 17/3, then I can only assume that the kitchen must be growing a bit hot for both of you.

Q&A “You just want to argue for the sake of argument “

Yes Q&A I can argue, it exercises my ability to reason, analyse and deduce.

Regarding “You can’t argue the science (you haven’t got a clue)”

We live in a country where freedom of speech is valued. I will not be silent simply to pacify or pander to your self-proclaimed and overbearing sense of authority and bullying.

I will quote what others have observed of you,


Of Q&A -
“you who claim to be scientists, but who fail to abide by scientific methods, are doing a lot of damage to the discipline, and ultimately to our faith in science.”

And

“I acknowledge that there are two sides. Some, like you, don't want to. I'd like to see your science qualifications. I bet they don't exist.”


I am not arguing “science”.

I am arguing reason, common sense, reliability and an expectation of “truth” being a significant component in any scientific submission.

I have never claimed to hold any “scientific” credentials.

From the above quotations, regardless of your opinion of yourself, others believe you not only lack the ability to argue science but are no better equipped with “scientific credentials” than the ones I admit not to having.

Past examples of “science” which despite the credentials, lacked “veracity”

thalidomide disaster,
lead in petrol
the reason for Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring”
William McBride
MMR vaccines

The list goes on

In opposing my argument, you are supporting the lie.
In bullying to silence me, you display you true character.

Jennifer “This is not about personalities, this is about a simply theory which has been articulated, incorporated into models and has now been proven wrong.”

I agree,

it is an act of criminal negligence for any government or UN authority to put credence in opinions drawn from a process with lacks fundamental reliability, accuracy and “truth”, especially when matters of individual liberty are being curtailed to fund carbon taxes, to no discernable benefit.

That is “Socialism by Stealth”

And it is as stupid as it is an arrogant abuse of power.