Sams,thanks for answering some of my questions, sort of. But a guy like you who apparently likes to get defintions and fine points right really ought to note the difference between "scepticism" and "denial".

I do get a bit weary of saying the same thing over and over again. So I'll say it in a different way, not because I think what i think is important to anyone but me, but because I think it may present to you some of the more subtle varieties of opinion other than for or against.

I don't know if AGW is happening.

I do think the world needs more power.

I would prefer that it were sustainable and/or non-polluting.

I am happy if we can cover all bases without resorting to hair shirts.
I am willing to move forward on that basis.
I am not willing to support an argument of which I honestly am yet unconvinced ( NOTE, NOT disbelieving or denying) simply because people think that the masses have to be scared shitless before they will support change.

I will continue to advocate non-polluting power sources sustainable when possible.

I admit that I do fervently hope that AGW is not happening. I am willing to be convinced that it is.

I am not and never have stated that i am a supporter of nuclear power, merely that it needs to be considered without the baby boomer baggage, although as I unpack my own, I am leaning in that direction, but not because of AGW.

Thanks Q and A for those resources, and for making a real effort to follow the thread of my argument.

fungochumley: "Only Sams could regard a 38 year career in meteorology and an MIT Professor's qualifications as not salient"

fungochumley: "That's not science, that's childish. Like when Sams gets caught and asked if he had his hand in the cookie jar above and replies "not really"."

Firstly, Mr Kininmonth is not even an scientist. He has not published a single article on climate change in peer-reviewed science journals.

Secondly, the man has registered as sole tradership with the trading name "Australasian Climate Research Institute" and goes around calling himself "The Director of the Australasian Climate Research Institute.

http://www.abr.business.gov.au//abnDetails.aspx?ABN=81287283607

See his book for example:

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Change-Natural-William-Kininmonth/dp/0906522269

"About the Author William Kininmonth is the director of the Australasian Climate Research Institute"

I see he has added a review for his own book on that very page:

"This book gives a readable scientific account of the climate we live in. If global warming and other forms of climate change are a "natural" hazard, shouldn't we be even more worried about its consquences? A great read!"

Give me a break.

This is the calibre of person that deniers are putting up as "scientists" against climate change.

Fungochumley

You imply scientific institutions do NOT “communicate information honestly and reasonably, and respond to valid questions”. Be constructive; tell us how they should explain the science – e.g. info nights, public seminars, what/when/how?

Are the IPCC dishonest too? Are they engaged in disinformation?

Re: Professor Jolliffe and Tamino

I was spit'n-chips with Castles’ post because he didn’t link to the actual dialogue between Jolliffe and Tamino. Castles didn’t go to the primary source (hardly scientific) but preferred Climate Audit. Others reading (you for example) would have taken Professor Jolliffe and Tamino (as well as Castles’ comments) out of context – your response is proof.

So, I would say Castles isn’t helping to inform people – he was/is distorting and misrepresenting what actually occurred. Castles doesn’t even take up the PCA discussion with Jolliffe or Tamino.

In other words, Castles is huffn-‘n’-puffn red herrings.

Here’s what Professor Jolliffe said in Tamino’s thread:

“We do agree with Dr. Mann on one key point: that MBH98/99 was not the only evidence of global warming. As we said in our report, “In a real sense the paleoclimate results of MBH98/99 are essentially irrelevant to the consensus on climate change.

The instrumented temperature record since 1850 clearly indicates an increase in temperature. We certainly agree that modern global warming is real. We have never disputed this point. We think it is time to put the “hockey stick” controversy behind us and move on.

If there now are people out there claiming that my first post undermines the whole global warming argument, tell me where and I’ll refute this misrepresentation as well.

[I am tempted to throw Castles (and Bob Carter) his way, but neither Castles (nor Bob Carter) submit papers now – ever wondered why not?]

Almost any decent statistical model-fitting will give the upward trend at the end of the series, but more importantly there are all the climate models, based mainly on physics rather than statistics, that provide convincing evidence of climate change and the reasons for it ...”

Jolliffe’s full response:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/08/10/open-thread-5-2/#comment-22080

I hope this helps put things in perspective.

Just correcting a typo I spotted:

I wrote:

"Secondly, the man has registered as sole tradership with the trading name "Australasian Climate Research Institute" and goes around calling himself "The Director of the Australasian Climate Research Institute."

I meant to write:

"Secondly, the man has registered as sole tradership with the trading name "Australasian Climate Research" and goes around calling himself "The Director of the Australasian Climate Research Institute."

i.e. the name of the sole tradership doesn't contain the word "Institute" (such a name probably can't be registered with the ABR as a sole tradership) because it would be deemed deceptive.

Is this the same William Kininmonth we are talking about Sams?

I think you should learn some respect, instead of vilifying a man whose career in climatology has been so lauded.

http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/fam/1442.html

Bill Kininmonth, head of the National Climate Centre since 1986, retired on January 6 after 38 years with the Bureau. He oversaw modernisation of the climate databank and development of our first seasonal outlooks during a remarkable era that placed global climate issues on the front burner.

The farewell tributes poured in from home and away, Songs were sung, many speakers heard.

'An eminent climatologist and world authority,' Acting Director Doug Gauntlett told the audience, 'known for forthright and honest advice during long and dedicated service'.

This is an endless debate in comments, as there is no Answer to grasp of course.
Where this could have gone is.
" Stop using fossil fuels"
And building solar power stations to replace fossil and nuclear and every other method of human manipulation of nature that is doing irreversable harm to the planet and its inhabitants.

Humans are the insane species. there is no doubt about that, given that they have foolishly invented ' intelligence' and gods to measure themself to other species, the only chance is for a mass human extinction and soon.