I mentioned Godwin's Law, C J Morgan, specifically in relation to the word "Denialist", because it has become a catch-all phrase for those folk who refuse to countenance any questioning of, or deviation from, what has become the dogma of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

It doesn't matter that that disagreement can range from stubborn - and probably foolish - denial that the climate is changing, to doubt about its claimed causes and consequences: Voice any doubt or skepticism and, not unlike Rik Mayall's pseudo-leftist student character in "The Young Ones" shouting "Fascist!", the pro-AGW lobby will immediately screech "Denialist!" - and the discussion is at an end.

So, no, there doesn't seem to be any point discussing climate change on OLO, because no-one is allowed to discuss anything, only nod their heads in sage agreement.

Oh, and for what it's worth: I don't deny that the climate is changing; it always has and it always will. What I *doubt* is that humans are causing it, that it can be stopped and that it will be the unmitigated disaster that worst-case computer projections suggest it may be.

Curmudgeon,
I bet you didn't read the paper or the comments because they explain the red herring you offered. Your entire mindset is based on weather and the word 'warming' not world climate change. The issue is where the warming is happening. The why its patchy is a temporary anomaly. Today the waters around the Antarctic are changing for the worse the tidal current will warm the pacific as it goes who know what the consequences will ultimately be Either way I'm more concerned about the security of food sources. Species depletions, pollution devastation of the environment etc.

I don't pretend to be an expert but given the wide agreement that is about amongst climatologists and the other sciences eg the author. The deniers have more difficulties across academic fields with their alternative explanations.

I think the author of this article has it right it is WCC and it isn’t explained by anything else other than anthropomorphic interferences. What it portends should prompt at least defences

Of course AGW is clearly a conspiracy by scientists throughout the world from different countries, cultures, education, experience, etc.

After all there are no vested interests by fossil fuel industries to spend dollars on 'denialism' is there?

Thanks to Q&A and Divergence for the links. I am disappointed that while Curmudgeon has alluded to the “global temperature declines” this century, in all his posts, he has been unable or unwilling to provide me with the charts I requested and since Curmudgeon has also failed to provide specific links to support his claims, I have endeavoured to find them myself – albeit in clumsy layman fashion.

I would appreciate Q&A’s and Divergence’s corrections to my assumptions (if necessary) on the following NOAA links, where I have failed to find evidence of global temperature “declines:”

The Annual Global Land Temperature Anomalies (degrees C)
The Annual Global Ocean Temperature Anomalies (degrees C)
The Annual Global (land and ocean combined) Anomalies (degrees C)

Go to:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/index.php

“The Southern Oscillation and increasing GHGs continue to be, respectively, the dominant factors affecting interannual and decadal temperature change. Solar irradiance has a non-negligible effect on global temperature [see, e.g., ref. 7, which empirically estimates a somewhat larger solar cycle effect than that estimated by others who have teased a solar effect out of data with different methods].

"Given our expectation of the next El Niño beginning in 2009 or 2010, it still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years, despite the moderate negative effect of the reduced solar irradiance”:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

The cooling impacts during 2008 from La Nina's presence was exploited as proof the globe was cooling. One can only speculate on the argument deniers will use with the re-emergence of a fired-up El Nino.

I have concluded that there are many obstacles and complex climate variations for scientists to overcome before arriving at their final conclusions on the impacts of A/climate change. Nevertheless, I note that the reputable climate scientists generously share their findings with other eminent scientists which significantly contributes to the need for ethical reporting and the requirement to publish ongoing corrections:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/printall.php

I have also concluded that the cherry picking by many commentators is a result of chronic myopia, perpetuated by matters of self-interest.

Protagoras,

I plead guilty to being a scientist, but not in this field. Q&A and Suzanne Miranda are the experts here. I just find the suggestion that there is some kind of conspiracy or that dissenters from some climate change orthodoxy are being systematically shut up in every university or research establishment around the world too ridiculous for words. The very best way for a young scientist to make a name (and get grants) for himself or herself would be to thoroughly discredit anthropogenic global warming.

Roy Spencer's graph of global cooling in the past decade, is on Jennifer Marohasy's blog: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/

Waldman's article seems to be based on a raft of assumptions. Let's see, there have been some changes - rainbow smelt have gone from the Hudson River in New York and another species has replaced it. This "regime shift" has a name because it's happened before. But this time Waldman attributes it to global warming, without a hint of doubt. Of course.

Waldman simply asserts that these changes are caused by global warming. He produces no evidence of causation - apart, apparently, from computer models - but "global weirding is already well under way." Right, thanks for the tip. He produces no evidence of when previous "regime shifts" might have happened in the Hudson River. Did the rainbow smelt he so admires replace some other species at some time, or were they just "always there"? And if regime shift has happened before, it obviously didn't do any harm. Things change. There was no day or state or condition to which we must all return.

The rainbow smelt haven't been seen in the Hudson River since 1998, he says - coincidentally, the year in which the COOLING began. Waldman says they went because the water was warming. He bases that assumption on a theory about temperature tolerance. Of course. That's the only possible explanation once you just KNOW the planet's warming.

Personally, I'm tired of reading crappy articles attributing anything and every thing to CO2 emissions, apparently in ignorance of the cooling of the past decade which has resulted in falling global average air and water temperatures, despite increasing emissions.

Any biologist or sociologist or epidemiologist can run a global warming scare and many frequently do. Hell, it's so easy even economists can do it, as Stern and Garnaut showed. Proving the case is not so easy.