(Q&A)> "Oh, that letter to Ban Ki Moon – and the names on the list. Do you really want me to explain to you why it was, umm ... ignored?"

Yes, go for it Q&A, don't hold back! You haven't been shy dishing out the contempt elsewhere, why the restraint over that letter? [see http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002 and http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004] It's rare that I get to see around 100 science PhD-academics from a dozen or so countries collectively lambasted in stark contrast to your lionization of non-scientist/non-academic, inheritor-oligarch and hedge fund spiv Al Gore.

I don't see much point dwelling further on celebrities, or superficial binary oppositions between Al Gore (Dem)/ Steroid-Governator (Rep), etc. But consider this line from one Rupert Murdoch, infamous GW-backer and promoter of the Iraq War:

"climate change poses clear catastrophic threats" (as quoted in the Stern Review which you will praise, and in a parliamentary report which you will diss)

Q&A, i'm sure the penny will drop some time soon but i must commend you on your wonderful penny arcade of funny stuff that you found in temperatures and what with the use of some mannesque techniques why not make up your own climate history, too. Cripes, if i put on your looking glasses i can see a Wudd , a Wong, a paddle pop, a thong, a Sonny Bill, a daffodil, a reclining chair, a drowning polar bear, a chunk of styrofoam breaking off splash or a subprime mishmash. Gawwwd it's no wonder you see these sinful CO2 emissions in everything except yourself.

Now just go back to these temp charts and tell me why the Southern Hemisphere for example has been trendless for thirty years and why we should be so alarmed because as i say there is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to a warming trend or to your "'extreme' extremes" wild nonsense. This opportunistic cherry picking of bits and pieces using some regional variations to deviously slot in human CO2 emissions as the culprit can only be interpreted as dodgy pseudo-science chasing funding. This is nothing more than selecting data that suits the cause and rejected data that doesn't. lol

There is also the issue of why current temperatures are not reflecting your IPCC's dodgy 30% increase in CO2 since the pre industrial period. It's becoming very apparent to many people that the Al-AGW advocates are pushing their agenda through emotion, ridicule, propaganda and rhetoric. They have NO proof which certainly explains their refusal to debate the issue.

Meanwhile, snow falls in...Sydney. ?

Some Questions:
What is it about the physics of CO2 induced warming that you don't like or understand>
Is it Planck's equation for radiation as a function of temperature?
Is it the frequency dependent absorption and reflection of electromagnetic energy through materials such as gases?
Is it the time dependent response of an isolated system with internal energy storages to an energy impulse or step?

What is it about the data you don't like or accept?
Is it the increasing level of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Is it the inexorable rise in mean global temperature especially over the last 50 years(Try a 5 year rolling average if you want to smooth out yearly fluctuations)
Is it the rise in ocean heights and average temperatures especially over the last 50 years?
Is it the much increased melting rates of glaciers, artic ice, and parts of the Antarctic ice shelf especially over the last 10 years?
Is it the shift towards the poles of flora and fauna of about 400km on land and about 1000km for plankton in the oceans?
Is it the change in characteristics of plants(eg earlier flowering) and animals(eg earlier breeding of birds)
Is it that all models have to include human induced CO2 to make the results fit the measurements?

What is is about the whole process you don't like?
Is it the climatatologists and various Universtities and agencies that have establised the case for CO2 warming?
Is it the people such as Al Gore who have popularised it?
Is it the environmental groups who argue for it?

What is it about the implications you don't like?
Is it that we will have to change our way of life?
Is it that the basis of economics has been exposed as faulty?
It it that your god has deserted you or the world or failed to make special provision for you?

What is it that makes it so hard to accept what is so obvious, well explained and is the best fit to all the measurements, and getting better, as time and more data are accumulated?

Keiran
Take off your tinfoil hat and repeat 100 times: 1 + 1 does NOT = 3

Alzo
Typical of your contribution.

mil-observer
Look deeper grass-hopper.
(Hint: it's not about climate change, it's about sustainability)

Richard Castles
Do you know the difference between weather and climate?

John B.
Good questions for climate science 101. Unfortunately, some people can't even add up and have difficulty in comprehension.

The real debate is about how we (humanity) are going to address adaptation and mitigation. It's unfortunate that some people can't constructively contribute to these discussions on OLO, and no wonder some eminent people and forward thinkers are engaging elsewhere.

Yes, it's about sustainability - of an argument. Q&A cannot sustain his case, or his own presumption in faint ridicule and/or dismissal of some 100 scientist-academics from 17 countries.

The scientists who volunteered for the petition are variously qualified in climatology, hydroclimatology, paleoclimatology, physics, geophysics, planetology, meteorology, geology, atmospheric science, oceanography, and various branches of engineering. In case readers missed it (as our media did), see: http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002 and http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004

The challenge is still there Q&A: you offered it yourself. C'mon, give it a go.