A pity again that personal sleights and mockery have taken over the pro-AGW orthodoxy responses: it only strengthens impressions of some over-compensation for something personal. I suppose my comments about Al Gore appear in much the same vein, but I trust that Big Al is not slumming it out on our forum. Indeed, I was hoping some of the pro-AGW orthodoxy could offer some defence for Al, but none has been coming!

Instead, could some pro-AGW folk offer a counter to the "open letter" by some 100 leading scientists to Ban Ki Moon during the Bali Climate Conference? See: http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002 and http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004

Note that their letter vehemently opposes AGW as a counter-productive, indeed destructive, interpretation of data, with all the widespread suffering and regressive effects that could be expected if both human activity and humans themselves are deemed inherently harmful.

And before finger-pointing over "conspiracy theories", do the AGW folk believe that all - or even most - of these above concerned scientists draw from fossil fuel industry payrolls?

Keiran: "Rather than BOM that are full of tricks" ... "just look at the Southern Hemisphere temps" ... "While you are at it please tell me what CO2 quota you have been given from your high priests."

BOM is full of tricks? Get a grip. Let have some science references instead of links to amateur blogs. Which bit of the NASA GISS page that I posted didn't you understand?

Was it this:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig3_irradiance.gif

Or this:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig1_2007annual.gif

Or this:

"Effect of the current La Niña on global surface temperature is likely to continue for at least the first several months of 2008. Based on sequences of Pacific Ocean surface temperature patterns in Plate 9, a next El Niño in 2009 or 2010 is perhaps the most likely timing. But whatever year it occurs, it is a pretty safe bet that the next El Niño will help carry global temperature to a significantly higher level."

or this:

"The Southern Oscillation and the solar cycle have significant effects on year-to-year global temperature change. Because both of these natural effects were in their cool phases in 2007, the unusual warmth of 2007 is all the more notable. It is apparent that there is no letup in the steep global warming trend of the past 30 years (see 5-year mean curve in Figure 1a)."

mil-observer, your posts here are better than most of the anti-AGW we see, but alluding to a Nobel conspiracy to support AGW borders on outright paranoia.

And as for John B's comments on oscillations - it is a gross simplification on one level. On day to day weather there is thousands of inputs. But on the level he is talking about - energy exchange between the oceans and atmosphere he is right, there will be oscillations, and because of the size of the systems involved their frequency will be measured in years. The peak in 1998 and the levelling off we are seeing now are to be expected in such a system. Really, there nothing in the slightest bit controversial about what he said - even for the bit about David Evans being aware of it.

The implication that David Evans not taking account of it is drawing a long bow, but whatever. Compared to "Nobel is a conspiracy to support AGW" its almost not worth mentioning.

Sams, yes BOM are full of tricks and this is not just my experience. Your BOM couldn't predict the current La Niña but even more incompetently wouldn't even acknowledge it for some months. It doesn't get any more stooopid than that. We can also put the CSIRO into the tricky dicky basket as well.

You make me laugh when you call Steve McIntyre an amateur. That is absolutely ridiculous stuff and you must know it. The UAH data for the temperature charts that i asked you to comment on is hardly some amateur effort either, so once again don't avoid the question. i.e. Just tell me what i'm supposed to be seeing here with these temperature graphs that should make me and any Australian feel alarmed. This is very much your responsibility or are you just a hocus-pocus nuisance?

While you are at it please tell me what CO2 quota you have been given from your high priests. This is very much your reality and i'd definitely like to know the extent of your carbon sin you naughty little boy.

No rstuart, I did not at any point allege a Nobel “conspiracy” as you claim I did. I referred to the Nobel Prize silliness, particularly as it glorifies the seriously compromised Al “manbearpig” Gore, in order to highlight the bizarre predicament we now face in a prevailing AGW orthodoxy. The situation appears to derive from the following inter-related factors:

1. Greed from the artificial monetarist mechanisms that have encouraged unsustainable financial bubbles these past decades, especially obvious in the surreal derivatives bubbles post-1990s. Notice that proposals for an emissions/carbon trading scheme depend on claims that such devices offer opportunities for more artificial wealth, or money for nothing, as demonstrated in the market's recent binges on funny-money credit and speculation (see today's OLO spiel in that direction at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7686).

2. Consolidation of oligarchical wealth to the point of feudal absolutism. This promises even less critical, intellectual ability among the rich, whose opinions and wishes are by contrast heard everywhere at greater volume. The less powerful must ape such views just to be acknowledged (hegemony).

3. Irrational fear, in some cases exacerbated by traditional racism, within western elites' regard for development in China, India and elsewhere in the “developing world”. This impulse would better suit the “paranoia” term rstuart conjures, as recent colonialist exploiters and parasitic tourists dread the increasing potential for role reversal as the continued rise of poor countries promises to seal the fate of a degenerate, aged, migrant-dependent west. Claims about “over-population” are especially repugnant in this regard, contrasting as they do with greater distortions between the west's birth rates and life expectancy. Such implicit racism within AGW orthodoxy smacks of an instinctive, not intellectual, response.

Identifying the above motives does not mean some shrill alarm about a “conspiracy”. Powerful proponents of AGW, like those pushing the Iraq War, have been quite public and open. Their distortions, exaggerations and emotive deceptions have all appeared before us in plain view, not in some secret, backroom meeting we would expect of more furtive, discreet criminals (as the “conspiracy” definition would demand).

"Your BOM couldn't predict the current La Niña but even more incompetently wouldn't even acknowledge it for some months".

There isn't a "current La Niña". We are in neutral conditions, which is neither La Niña nor El Niño. It was predicted, too. Who's incompetent, again?