i stopped commenting a long while ago
but when i read the sad demise of on line opinion
i just take that as a personal threat

Here we have an auther using two pages
[not to post a factual case supporting his means of income]
but to make a vitriolic appeal [threat?] based on other issues [aids has its cause with polio live virus mnade from monkeys ;

i have yet to meet any one with it [i know lots of people dying of it but they all been written down as smoking deaths]

thing is i heard the sky is falling too many times
each time i believe it it costs me cash

this new global tax is set to raise an extra tax upon the poor equaling 85 trillion PER YEAR ,as if that cost couldnt rebuild our industries with its one year [let alone it being with us infinatly]

just as smokers tax [and drinkers tax[and gst tax ,[compusory super cash ,[medicare cash
it seems allways the first cure from these scares is cash!

85 trillion is a lot of cash
for big buisness to do more bigger buisness?

i bought a new computer for y2k scare
i bought the flue shot for the bird flue
seems its all about cash
[our cash]
beat it up
cash it in

post up facts
please present facts
and leave olo alone!

we know who would shut down the truth
is only after ways and means to get more of our cash
parilise us with fear
then rob us blond

the sun in one day releases more energy into our earth than we get from a year from ALL our energy sources

Grey, I was trying to get the energy to post something anyway, but your link tipped the balance. I don't know much about how climate science works, but I have seen the politics work and in particular how these the sceptics work. So I went to a page, and choose a single paper at random, but near the end. Near the end because I thought he might of actually read the first ones in case people check. I clicked on this one: "Test for harmful collinearity among predictor variables used in modeling global temperature".

Title sounds bad, doesn't it? So does the abstract. It says in part: "In a recent paper Santer et al. (2001; J Geophys Res 106:28033- 28059) questioned the validity of such studies, noting that large El Niño events have occurred at the same time as 2 major volcanoes. They calculated a correlation between these 2 variables and claimed that this indicates collinearity, which can adversely affect any regression analyses.". Translated: Santer says the the analysis done by the climate scientists were wrong.

Obviously Pete didn't get past that. Because if he had read the conclusions of he would of seen the paper says Santer is wrong. The paper is in fact a peer reviewed paper supporting the science behind AGW.

Maybe this particular skeptic is unusual, maybe he ie normally very careful and unbiased in his research. But he quotes a lot of links, and I don't have the time to check them all. So I am going to reply on my sample of 1 and instead trust what wikipedia says on the subject:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

PS. I should also say thanks for posting some verifable data. Most don't.

Clive and friends,

“The polar temperature is positively correlated with the SC, with a statistically significant zonal mean warming of approximately 4.6 K in the 10-50-hPa layer in the mean and 7.2 K from peak to peak. This magnitude of the warming in winter is too large to be explainable by UV radiation alone. The evidence seems to suggest that the polar warming in NH late winter during SC-max is due to the occurrence of sudden stratospheric warmings (SSWs), as noted previously by other authors. This hypothesis is circumstantially substantiated here by the similarity between the meridional pattern and timing of the warming and cooling observed during the SC-max and the known pattern and timing of SSWs, which has the form of large warming over the pole and small cooling over the midlatitudes during mid- and late winter. The eQBO is also known to precondition the polar vortex for the onset of SSWs, and it has been pointed out by previous authors that SSWs can occur during eQBO at all stages of the solar cycle. The additional perturbation due to SC-max does not double the frequency of occurrence of SSWs induced by the eQBO.” – Selected from Abstract by Camp, C. D., and Tung, Ka Kit

What the above and the rest of the article seems to say is that owing to eleven year cycles in the Earth’s orbital wobble, there are times that North Pole is strongly-heated (SSW) and that heat is dissipated and cooled to the mid-latitudes. The article mentions that the movement of highs-to-lows creates winds, a vortex, that would lessen the effect of sudden stratospheric warmings [at the North Pole] towards the mid-latitudes. Else put, think of an iron on an ironing board and the heat dissipates. If the board was fanned, the effect lessens. In the case of the climatic example, the patterns follow a forward-cycle, then a reverse-cycle.

These scientists here are not taking a position “for” or “against” human intervention in warming: Merely describing a system.

What would be significant is, finding the existence of a tilting point disrupting the above system.

-Cont.-

Clive,

- What is the abovementioned Earth-Sun system’s tipping point, explicitly? Data.

- How does your discrimination analyses support your posit? Present data, not opinion. Show us your constructs and model. Okay?

- Data, Clive, data.

- What is your model?

Lemniscate,

Good citations. These findings should be used as line in the sand, qualifications, or benchmarking, not an argument “for” or “against” climate change, in isolation. These studies tell us how things work.Super-added, we need to address Earth’s “tolerances” against, how things work. Metaphorically, will the elevator support 100 kg, 500 kg or 10,000 kg?

p.s. To produce a line of best fit, a regression of the sum of least squares, on a time line, volcanos would normally be excluded from the data set. That said, if we are not testing the normalised model, rather the extent of deviations in the System, including human activity, volcanos should be included, because the sum of normal activity + volcanos + human activity needs to measured against tolerance.

GrahamY,

I feel debaters are taking models relating extraneous contexts, say, heat in relation to celestial dynamics, and bending material of rightful fit for the researchers’ purposes; and, transmuting results, for unrightful, unrelated, unfit conclusions. The data may be good, but the context is wrong.

Extrapolation, via linear regression, is helpful, but limited. In the late 1990s, y=a+bx models, predicted continuous smooth growth of .Coms into this century.

All,

- My abovementioned comments goes to both parties in the debate, for all concerned or not concerned about global warming?

- How can we debate, “Are we speeding?”, without knowing the speed limit?

- If Clive Hamilton does not answer my challenge. Perhaps, he has more hot air, than the Solar Wind?

Please note, I am NOT picking a debate with Clive on Global Warming, rather with his poor writing [construction not literacy] and lack of sound methodology.

Cheers.

Tis also sad that people like Clive Hamiliton wants to divide the world into simplistic believers and deniars.

I have disagreed with OLO giving oxygen to people like Keysar Trad who I find devisive and repulsive,however I did not threaten excommunication of OLO because of my perceived intellectual prowess.

Graham was right is labelling some of these high priests of our so called nefarious,intellectual elite as nothing but bullies.

Graham has a more pleasant turn of phrase,however the sheer arrogrance of Clive just displays his ignorance of the true scientific method.Clive's hypothisis has yet to be fully tested,but claims that the sceptics are nothing more than mere heretics.

Clive and his ilk are asking the world to believe in an unproven theory because the bulk of scientists have a gut feeling that AGW and CO2 influences on climate are self evident,without the relevant data or the analyisis that proves the logical connections.

No person in a Western Court of Law would be convicted or murder with the evidence presented by the AGW exponents.It is nothing more than circumstancial.Case dismissed.

Sadly, it seems to me that the debate, at least in this forum, IS over. Not because it is settled, but because there can be no meaningful debate without some respect for opposing views. I do not see that Clive has made one accusation in this piece that could not be levelled equally towards elements of the AGW affirmatives. People are generally predisposed to see in others what they don’t want to see in themselves. And 'both' sides - I don't like the black & white division - are prone to this.

My view, however, is that the destructive first stone, that has precluded healthy debate, was thrown by AGWers when they labelled anyone, as Clive does here, who analyses, questions and critiques the validity and reliability of climate science methods, procedures, protocols and statistics - something that should be absolutely fundamental and actively encouraged, especially given the importance of the issue on a global environmental and economic scale - as “denialists”. What arrogance to say if you even challenge my work you are in denial! It renders debate an impossibility, is an exercise in extreme control, and comes closer to a totalitarian claim to The Truth, inconvenient or not, than scepticism does to denial. No other scientific field, especially one that deals with such complex data, virtual modelling and so many unknowns – admitted even by the IPCC - would dare see itself as so beyond scrutiny.

To liken such scientific rigour to Holocaust denialism, as Robyn Williams has previously in his book on Intelligent Design, is worthy of a scathing response. But in labelling this denialism, Clive actually reveals his wish to DENY opponents the right to have any response at all