GLarsen: "I’m baffled by your link to SpringerLink. This is not a climate science journal as you say" ...

Dear me, you seem to be having a bit of trouble driving a web browser. It is a link to "Climatic Change" [Springer Netherlands ISSN 0165-0009] (check again: http://www.springerlink.com/content/100247/). Methinks you have read down too far and picked up Janama's link to the EPW blog that I debunked earlier.

GLArsen: "Your points 1 & 2 above are ad hominem & I will not comment."

How convenient for you, but you misunderstand the term 'ad hominem': "The theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a *motive for lying*, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem - '*' are mine).

There is a reason we remove people from juries when they have vested interests or connections to the accused, so had damn well better address 1 & 2.

Point 3 refers again both the the unreliability if the research and the reasons that the truth might be manipulated.

So I repeat my challenge: look at current research in real climate science journals by real climate scientist such as

http://www.springerlink.com/content/100247/ "Climatic Change"

and show us the links there to those published works disputing human-caused climate change.If there is another peer-reviewed climate science journal you'd prefer, let us know.

To rstuart

I find it very difficult to take seriously someone who says "I guess I should not of been surprised at how bad the data was they have to work with, but I was."

"You could well of asked me to do the same, and I would of given the same response."

The word is "have" NOT "of".

To Sams: The assertion that the "science is settled", is obviously untrue, as there is a great deal of dissent in the scientific community. You are obviously unwilling to open your mind to the possibility that your beloved AGW may not exist after all.

Froggie wrote: "To Sams: The assertion that the "science is settled", is obviously untrue, as there is a great deal of dissent in the scientific community. You are obviously unwilling to open your mind to the possibility that your beloved AGW may not exist after all."

Firstly, I did not say "science is settled" at all. Please don't falsely quote me. Such a statement would be ignorant of how science works. For example, the IPCC allow a small possiblilty that they may be wrong about certain determinations when they say things like "The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%".

Secondly, I have already lead you to a real climate science journal, with peer-reviwed papers by actual climate scientists. Here is the link again:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/100247/

It is clear for everyone that cares to review the numerous abstracts there that amongst the practising climate scientist there is not "a great deal of dissent" at all - in fact is can't see any there. Can you please point it out?

I think we can safely ignore the sham "scientists" that the desperate deniers have linked to here - retired 86-year year old coal chemists who describe themselves as "IPCC expert reviewers" because they made a public submission to the IPCC that anyone could make, TV weather presenters describing themselves as "meteorologists", and a self-described "rocket scientists" who in fact are electrical engineers that wrote some computer code for the AGO at some time in the past.

Finally, saying "your beloved AGW" is just an ad hominem attack. I have no love of human-caused climate change, and stand to suffer from of it like anybody else. Should everyone tomorrow decide that, yes, climate change is caused by humans, I would not profit from it in any way (except I'd be more optimistic about the future). Contrastingly, almost all of the high-ranking deniers have documented links to big fossil fuel money.

Sams

You make some fine "ad hominem" attacks yourself, don't you?
You can dish it out, but you can't take it. "Sham scientists" indeed!!

If all the scientists having a contrary position to that of the IPCC are rubbish as you imply, then how do you explain this?

http://www.petitionproject.org

What about Richard Lindzen, is he a sham scientist too? Just because he doesn't go along with your particular brand of eco-hysteria?

I can also come up with web site links, just as valid as yours, which don't hold the same view as yours.

Are you a climatologist by the way? Why do you believe that computer models are a proxy for real evidence?

The fact is that the climate is not reacting as predicted by these models. I suggest that some more convincing evidence be provided before the people are taxed to death.

Froggy wrote: "I can also come up with web site links, just as valid as yours, which don't hold the same view as yours."

Except my links are to current research in climate science journals, so I would think that they would be more relevant, don't you? You seem to have gotten all hot under the collar when presented with a real climate science journal that slays your theories with ease.

Froggy: "Are you a climatologist by the way? Why do you believe that computer models are a proxy for real evidence?"

No, I'm a particle physics PhD (I worked in quantum chromodynamics). I am not a climate scientist and neither are you, obviously. So the question comes down to one of authority of knowledge - who to believe. Do we believe the thousands of scientists behind the IPCC, and NASA, or a handful of scientists who invariable have links to big fossil fuel money:

http://www.desmogblog.com/directory_people/richard-lindzen

http://www.desmogblog.com/lindzen-wipes-hands-clean-of-oil-and-gas

As for the petitionproject site, how many signers are working climatologists, or even exist at all? Anyone can sign one of their slips an call themselves a scientist or *equivalent*. There is no independent audit to make sure nothing dodgy is going on.

Sticking to the climate science journals as a representative sampling of climate scientists is more than sufficient to see the consensus that they believe humans are causing the current regime of climate change.

Sams

Well, you certainly have given me something to think about.

The two links you gave me were written by some PR hack, NOT a scientist.

“Richard Littlemore has been trained by Al Gore as part of The Climate Project, an initiative designed to educate the public about climate change.”

http://www.desmogblog.com/richard_littlemore

Now anybody “trained” by that overblown, hypocritical windbag, has to be a complete shill. Al Gore should practice what he preaches.

The second one refers to some BBC article. You’re having a laugh, aren’t you?

The BBC is so far left that its credibility is now in tatters, and people are talking about having it disbanded and privatised, but at least in this article, it tried to give some semblance of impartiality – probably as insurance against when the current AGW scaremongering is proven to be a crock of “merde”.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6595369.stm

I had a look at the responses to some of the articles on that web site you pointed me to, and I couldn’t help but notice that the “opposers” were about twice as numerous as the “supporters” of the AGW theory.

Here is an article showing an opinion of the “Climate change” debate that I agree with:

http://blogs.theage.com.au/business/archives/2008/07/climate_change_debate_silenced.html

Read this, too, plus the readers comments.!

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19926634.800-cleaner-skies-explain-surprise-rate-of-warming.html