Cont’d

As for Spencer, we have more in common that you would ever dream.

What we don’t have in common – he pre-publishes on a ‘denialist’ blog site (WUWT) a ‘paper’ that had serious issues (errors) without peer review (unless you can call WUWT posters his peers) . This is not unexpected from the Heartland cabal, of which Bob Carter is also a flag waver.

Btw, Mr DiPuccio did NOT reference the paper that I “turned-up”. He did however reference a paper co-authored by James Hansen, Gavin Schmidt and Josh Willis – fancy that.

Fwiw, I agree with Josh - multiyear periods of little warming (or even cooling) are not unusual.

Barry: Hey, Barry.
Barry: Yes, Barry.
Barry: I dunno, Barry. It’s just, well, these measurements is showing a cooling, Barry.
Barry: Oi, what? That can’t be right.
Barry: ‘Tis, Barry. Look for yourself. Definite cooling.
Barry: Better check the instruments, Barry.
Barry: Ah, I got it, Barry. There must be a “warm bias” in the old data, and a “cool bias” in the new data. Easily sorted.

(tinker, tinker)

Barry: That should do it.
Barry: Nice work, Barry. Don’t ya love science? Not just getting warmer in the future, but colder in the past, ay Barry. ‘Ere, you done them grant applications yet?
Barry: Relax, Barry. All under control. You booked the plane tickets to Copenaygin?
Barry: All sorted, my son. Should be a hoot this year. I hear that Sally bird from Greenpeace is gonna be there. Cwoar! Wouldn’t mind warmin’ her globes, ey Barry. Nudge, nudge.
Barry. Do they make that nice ice cream in Copenaygin, Barry?
Barry: Believe so, Barry, believe so.
Barry: ‘Ere, Barry?
Barry: Yes, Barry.
Barry: Do you ever…
Barry: What, Barry?
Barry: I dunno, Barry, do you ever, you know, fink of goin’ straight?
Barry: What! On this little earner? Never.
Barry: But what if, you know, people start noticing, well, you know, that it’s not atchally gettin’ warmer?
Barry: No one ever got rich overestimating the intelligence of the common man, my son. Besides, if this one falls through, I’ve got another one I’m workin’ on.
Barry: What’s that, Barry?
Barry: How’s this? Clothes gives ya cancer.
Barry: Ay, what?
Barry: Clothes gives ya cancer.
Barry: Gees, Barry. That’d put the textile industry in a right muck.
Barry: Precisely, my son. Precisely. ‘Ere, pass us another beaker of the ethanol, will ya. Mind the lab coat! Mind the lab coat! Only just had it dry-cleaned this morning.
Barry: ‘Ere ya go.
Barry: Cheers, old son!
Barry: Cheers!

(clink, clink)

Senator Fielding is either relying on the advice of three incompetent scientists or is being guided by scientists who are skillfully manipulating the debate. Either way the Senator is being set up to make a fool of himself.
As has already been pointed out these questions may appear simple but they do not admit to a simple answer. With regard to the first question the assumption is that there is a direct correlation between CO2 and rise in temperature and that both can be expressed in terms of straight line graph. As with all complex dynamic systems climate change is not that easily described. What we can point to is that the underlying trend is one of consistently increasing temperatures roughly in line with the increase of CO2 concentrations. The second question is really a set of questions - yes global warming of this magnitude has occurred in the past - once in human history, at a time when the world's population was sufficiently small to enable the mass migration of people to more hospitable climes. The third question can only be regarded as a debating trick. Competent scientists are aware of the limitations of computer models.
Prudent public policy demands that we ask the question "can we really afford to take the risk to assume that AGW is false?" Should we play Russian Roulette with our future?

I have to take BAYGON to task on his post. The questions are questions and the answers have NOT been forthcomming because the evidence shows the opposite of what these AGW drones are claiming whilst they sponge off us.
When was this period of previous global warming you are referring to?
No one has mentioned the Ice Age (Ages) but if you are, that was what spurred mankind from primitive societies into cities and civilization, anathama to the Greens but without it we would not be here.
The AGW drones were claiming a new ice age in the 1970's supported by our taxpayer dollars courtesy of PM Whitlam.
No BAYGON, the questions remain unanswered and Fielding should dig in and tell the Senate (Government) NO!

Q&A, you continue to duck the facts. There has been a decrease in global heat over the last decade or so, and all of what you have cited, and what DiPuccio cites, supports that. All your bluster about DiPuccio not being peer reviewed is just an irrelevant distraction. He doesn't have to be peer reviewed to provide a good explanation. And he provides a good explanation and you haven't produced one fact which contradicts it.

There is no rule on On Line Opinion barring you from using your real name, so why don't you use it? You presume to criticise people like Bob Carter not on the basis of anything he says, but just because of who he is and who he associates with. If you think that is fair, then tell us who you are so we can apply the same standards to you.

The fact that you post anonymously, and the lack of substance in what you post, indicates that your reputation isn't going to support your argument. But surprise us. Maybe you are a professor or respectable research scientist.

So, no one's managed to accurately predict the weather? Gee, imagine that.
What we do know, it that oil supplies are FINITE.
Coal supplies are finite.
Natural gas is finite.
Even uranium is finite.
There is absolutely no sign that the world will ever use less energy than we are using now; in fact the exact opposite.
Credible financial models indicate that virtually all our fossil fuel reserves will be consumed by the end of this century. That's in the life times of my children.
If they are going to be virtually gone in the next 90 years, how expensive are they going to get?
Whether AGW is real or not, doesn't really matter. We need to preserve valuable resources for future generations, simply because it is the right and responsible thing to do.
We can either start making the necessary adjustments now, or wait until it is too late and see the world as we know it, go out not with a whimper, but a whole lot of bangs.
There is no way the vast majority of the Human Race is going to just sit down quietly and DIE, while a tiny minority enjoy the lifestyle of kings and potentates.