Q&A - I'm quite impressed that you must have bought the paper in the journal Science to which I refer in the article. Your quote is not in the general article or the abstract. But that is by the by, the research is not really relevent to the theme of the article - that global warmers have admitted to the current hiatus in temperatues and have produced several different explanations of that warming. I merely mentioned it as one promising line of research into the puzzle of why very small variations in the sun's energy output has such a large influence. All the scientists quoted are respected authorities and all have wildly different stories. Its hardly worth exploring the differences except to say that, obviously, the field is very far from settled.
Given the very unsettled theory, lack of warming in the past decade and lack of evidence that what warming has occured is artificial in some way, adopting strong policy based on the theory would seem to be premature. We are talking billions of dolalrs and the climate scientists can't find one story and stick to it.
By the by if they really said the 11 year solar cycle has show no measurable trend over the past 30 years they will be very embarrassed that you found that quote, given what the sun is doing, at the mo - nothing much.

I think the author of this article is likely to be in the same position as journalists once employed by the British nuclear energy authority to convince people that just a little bit of radiation isn't a bad thing. In other words he hopes that readers will accord him some credibility at the same time as it is blatantly obvious that his bread is buttered by precisely those interests in whose interest it is to maintain unsustainable levels of production and consumption based on nineteenth century technologies.

I take the view that scientists, climatologists included, are rationally trained and not inclined to panic. Journalists, on the other hand, have nothing like the public standing of the former profession.

Pull the other one mate.

anthonykn and Kenny - The thrust of the article is simply to point out that global warmers have acknowledged that the temperature record isn't following script and they have'nt got their story straight on why that is so. The references and reasoning are all quite clear. Mostly I have only cited global warmers themselves.
In fact, the only response you can make is a sneering political denounciation, which is what you have done. It is sad that the debate should fall to that level, or that you would think your responses are some sort of answer. Do you have any arguement to make on the facts or is that it?

The author has apparently been a science writer for the AFR. Based on the monumental lack of understanding of climate science demonstrated in this article, and, worse, willingness to make giant and nonsensical leaps to incorrect conclusions, my estimation of the AFR has just fallen.

I counted 6 completely false statements and 7 serious misunderstandings.

Moreover, the central line of argument of the article - that there is significant scientific doubt that the world is warming, and that human activities are primarily responsible - is just flat wrong.

Mr Mark Lawson,
please do some reading around and get to know what your fellow climate sceptics are saying because you're embarrassing yourself.

You repeat one of my FAVOURITE pieces of sceptic propaganda which is that warming ceased in 1998.

First of all, the May 2007 New Scientist listed the top 26 myths promoted by sceptic propaganda and "cooling since 1998" was of course included. In other words, this was debunked years ago. Why are you still circulating this dishonest claptrap?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462

Not only is the myth of cooling since 1998 factually incorrect (as 2005 was hotter and 2007 was as hot) but even FELLOW sceptics are starting to warn against repeating this myth, in case you all shortly look foolish.

At the 2009 Heartland Institute conference Dr Patrick J Michaels explained that long term climate trends were still up, but that short term El Nino and solar heating trends bumped 1998 up above the mean, and then following cooling La Nina cycles let the trends drop a bit. He warned that when the El Nino cycle switches back we could see even STRONGER warming, and then said:

"Make an argument that you can get killed on and you will kill us all…
If you loose credibility on this issue you lose this issue!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4

Ummm, Mr Lawson, you lose.

El Nino is returning. Temperatures this year or next could break the records. We don't have to wait very long. But hey? Look on the bright side! A few years after that when the La Nina comes back, you can always write about how "global temperatures have been cooling since 2010, as 2010 reached a new high point and it has been cooling since". I just wonder if your sceptical audience will be dense enough to swallow that ridiculous cherry-picking routine a second time?

So do you want to check out that youtube clip where one of your fellow sceptics rebukes the Heartland institute for spreading this myth, or are you just going to continue on your way making a complete fool of yourself?

Oh dear, not again. I really wish some journalists would give up trying to "do science". It doesn't help when you take an a priori position and then try and filter scientific abstracts through that perspective.

Look Mark, I appreciate that you think you know what these scientific authors that you quoted are on about, but it's quite clear that you don't. More than one of those papers provide support for feedback mechanisms being responsible for amplifying warming trends, whether they be triggered by CO2 events or not. This is something that I have seen you argue against many times. So, now I am confused as to whether you are arguing for including feedback mechanisms or not in climate models.

As to the Meehl et al. paper you provided at the last, I would suggest that you buy the whole paper and read it before you attempt publish this sort of thing again. The last line is a doozy.

I'll save you some money:
"This response also cannot be used to explain recent global warming because the 11-year solar cycle has not shown a measurable trend over the past 30 years".

Get that? No measurable trend in the solar cycle in 30 years. And they give a reference for that too, maybe you should read it.

J. Lean, G. Rottman, J. Harder, G. Kopp. SORCE Contributions to New Understanding of Global Change and Solar Variability. Sol. Phys. 230, 27 (2005)