kulu, I think you're jumping at shadows, you see evil everywhere, well everywhere there is disagreement with you and your beliefs.

"After discussing the matter with scientists of the Heartland Institute he has come away etc" wake up, clearly he went there with an open mind, a suspicious mind or some doubts. Not everyone is a devout believer swallowing the drivel on the many pro and against climate websites.

"Should I take the man for being a fool or just naive?" Who cares?

This is why I responded at all "Or should I begin to doubt his repeatedly made claim that his trip to the US was self funded?" the veiled accusation that "someone" e.g. BIG OIL (dadadaduhhhhh!) is funding him, oh my god an elected parliamentarian from Australia is a patsy for the oil companies. He's not from the ALP, he's an intelligent man who knows fools are going to make accusations like that as they do against all on believers and heretics so why would he do it - you sully his name because he is not a fellow devout believer. Some countries even charge and jail people for such slander!

For gods sake grow a brain .. you sound like a first year uni student who has just discovered the world outside high school. So what's the climate club you belong to, or do you belong to as many as possible?

Bugsy - pardon my forgetfulness in taking so long to reply.. Now you're getting it when you point out that there were turns or changes in those times you mentioned.. That's more of a counter but, regretably, far from conclusive.
The current downturn is certainly not confirmed, as I've pointed out several times. As for only taking the readings from around the turn of the century that was data unknown at the time of the forecasts, and thus it is all important. Its the crucial test.. You point to the rest but there is no way of knowing what is natural and what is articial in all of that.. the only real test of the models is against data unknown at the time they made forecasts. If temperatues continue to go down (its looking that way, a closer look at the month on month readings indicates that the trend is continuously down - no break), then the modellers have a real problem. At the moment it can still be dismissed but prepare youself! Hope that helps.

The month on month data? Man, you must have been positively wetting yourself in 2000.

By your own dataset, since 2005 was the second hottest year on record, the 'cooling' must have started then, and not in 2000-2001, right? that's nearly 3.5 years of 'cooling'!

I have no idea why those pesky climatologists don't have the decency to be embarrassed yet.

Amicus,

Your tirade does not change anything...anything at all. You my be convinced of the mans integrity but I am not.

I am much more convinced of the integrity of James Hanson, the Hadley Institute, all the scientists who contributed to the IPCC report, Stern and Garnaut than I am of Fielding. Many of these people have spent decades studying our climate. Unless there is a remarkable conspiracy between them all to dupe the world then their collective expertise should be given a much greater weight by the thinking non-scientist than that of fossil fuel funded mouthpieces and a few other commentators many of whom have been discredited for misrepresenting and distorting the facts.

if there is global warming, we need to look for the real empirical evidence. The atmosphere is mad up of gases, when they increase in temperature the pressure the gases exert would increase.
Global warming on Pluto has been detected by measuring changes in atmospheric pressure. Can someone explain to me why the scientific world has been silent on changes to atmospheric pressure which would either confirm or deny the theories on global warming.

Additionally when gases absorb energy their absorption spectrum changes, has any studies been done to detect such changes?

Mark Lawson. The 1100 square kilometre break up of the Wilkins Ice Shelf occurred in March 1998. Why did you say it occurred in “the early 1990’s?” And why, when part of the Wilkins broke up again in 2008 and 2009, would you say that one “would expect some continued melting,” after the 20th century - some 10 and 11 years hence respectively - particularly when you persist (and persist and persist) with your claim that warming ceased in 1998?