Hamilton's right. Many comments here and on Graham Young's discussion are indistinguishable from the drivel one reads at e.g. Tim Blair's or Andrew Bolt's blogs. Very few participants seem genuinely open to persuasion about climate change and AGW no matter what the weight of evidence is, so what's the point of wasting time?

There is little knowledge being exchanged. Rather, it's mostly denialist invective that is occasionally responded to in similar terms. Unfortunately, the usual suspects who contribute to discussions about climate change and AGW in this forum just repetitively throw rocks at each other from entrenched positions.

I'm not at all surprised that those who are involved in developing strategies to deal with global warming are drawing a line under their general argument. The time for debating the details of global warming has passed - it is time for action. The 'denialists' and 'skeptics' are noisily rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, while those who know better are tring to plug the hole and ready the lifeboats.

While there isn't much point in engaging at OLO about climate change and AGW, I'll continue to scan these threads occasionally. At least Graham only censors me on other subjects when I'm clearly OTT - I don't think Blair or Bolt have ever approved any of my comments :)

OLO is open to anybody to sign up and comment. I see no "selection" process as to whom may sign up and comment on any article.

The uncritical acceptance by the bulk of the media, and now even most politicians, of computer models purporting to show that "we are facing environmental disaster", leaves no-one of a sceptical frame of mind a place to voice their opinion.

This refusal of Clive Hamilton to further debate the issue, to me confirms that AGW is more of a religion than a science.

The Lockwood and Frohlich (L&F) paper has been discredited by the scientific community. In the 330 words available, here’s why.

L&F claim solar activity has declined since 1985 and Earth’s global average surface temperature increased since 1975. L&F compare four solar activity times-series (solar cycles, No. 21, 22, and 23) against one global average surface temperature time-series of since 1975. L&F’s conclusion:

The Earth’s surface air temperature does not respond to the solar cycle

is not established.

L&F do not address relevant findings, including:

• the need to examine the totality of solar/climate relationships (i.e. impact of variations of the four solar variables: solar radiation and matter output, and the solar electromagnetic and gravitational fields, and the interactions between them and the Earth’s climate);
• the error of using a simple global average surface temperature, when it is known that solar influence is highly variable over the globe;
• the significant differences between the three widely used time series of solar irradiance; L&F use the one Frohlich produced;
• known non-linear, non-stationary relationships;
• the known time-lagged relationship between solar activity and surface air temperature and other key climate variables (Atmospheric Angular Momentum, Length of Day and Sea Surface Temperature); and
• the established finding that the output of the two different phases (toroidal and poloidal) of the solar dynamo affect the Earth’s climate differentially, the effect of one lagging behind that of the other: the two climate effects follow two very different periodicities:

In 1982 the solar physicist, Joan Feynman, sister of Richard Feynman, showed that the aa-index of geomagnetic activity (measure of the Sun’s magnetised solar plasma) has a toroidal and a poloidal component. It has been established that the long-term variations in terrestrial temperature, attributed by the IPCC to anthropogenic activity, are due to the long-term variations in solar activity generated by solar poloidal magnetic fields. Eg,

"Long term changes in solar meridional circulation as the cause for the long-term changes in the correlation between solar and geomagnetic activity" by Katya Georgieva and Boris Kirov, solar physicists at the Solar-Terrestrial Influence Laboratory Sofia Bulgaria, see http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0703/0703187.pdf

CJ, you mention "the weight of evidence" for alarmist AGW. This implies you have no proof. Are you prepared to declare humanity guilty of an impossible crime without trial and without one bit of proof? YES or NO?

The AGW that you support is a fact free zone but perhaps if this limiting of carbon emissions is so important, i'd be interested in your response to ...... the obvious major drop in carbon emissions during the depression years had NO effect at all on rising atmospheric CO2 and ZERO effect on rising temperatures.

ALSO, if we have already done this limiting of carbon emissions to no effect what about not limiting carbon emissions and seeing global temperatures come down?

ps ... A very good post lemniscate. From my experience AGWers don't know or ignore solar and geomagnetic activity. However if they did, what's the betting that some advocacy/political group will develop a way to blame solar variability on human activity and want to tax us to fix it?

That OLO has declined in journalistic standards has become increasingly evident as this year has progressed. I read it less. It is no longer a journal but is a blog. Mr Young and his advisers have lost the plot. I continue to receive the publication in the hope that an article of substance may appear.

Rstuart,
I respect that you have taken the time to at least look at some of the article. Most global warming alarmists, like Clive, seem to think themselves above it. However, quoting wikipedia on a controversial topic is pointless, as their editors quite clearly agree with Clive (which is not a good thing for those interested in the evidence, and not just the propaganda).

One thing you should have done was review the article that the paper you reviewed was referring to. Sanders paper was actually arguing against existing climate change research that was showing less of a warming trend. To rephrase Sanders said that harmful collinearity in ENSO, TSI and volcanic signals was causing a finding of a smaller global warming trend (and thus the real trend was worse than these previous studies showed).

So Douglass Et Al was arguing that the warming trend was less than the currently accepted figure when you properly consider TSI, ENSO and volcanic signals.

There is no mistake in including the paper in the list, you just need to dig deeper.

The Abstract for Sanders paper can be found here
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2001/2000JD000189.shtml

Cheers