“What difference to global warming or climate change will this make? The simple answer is: none whatsoever.”

So why all the hype

Why the three-ring circus?

Why?

Socialism by Stealth

Thats why!

Having failed the economic test, the small, envious minds of the left have infiltrated the soft underbelly of the environmentalists, with the intention of forcing their (previously failed) collectivist ideology upon the world.

I only hope I don’t get dragged along by all the dullard sheep who, despite their stupidity, also get to vote.

Like Leigh said “The final paragraph says it all; but still the hysterics will blunder on, and the politicians will continue to use false information and downright lies to fool and frighten people to prop up their corrupt regimes.”

Johnm Ryan “Your wasting your time trying to talk sense with Leigh,Runner et al because don,t like being told they might be wrong, with that lot whatever comes out of the Right wing noise machine in the US, and the backsides of Bolt and Ackerman two more loathsome people you could never hope to meet,is correct”

Ah less than objective statement … typical, moronic, monocular, left wing rubbish..
Arjay “Money it seems, can buy almost anything,even scientific fraud.”

Yes “whoring” is not contained within the back streets of St Kilda.

Ken Fabos “the desperate tactics of those who can't present a scientifically credible case otherwise.”

Proving a negative is impossible.. hoevwer, climate scientists are still postulating theories (based on bodgey data) and claiming it as “positive proof”

Reality.. “scientific bull-tish” remains “bull-tish” regardless of who is spreading it.

Wobbles “I'd love to see some of the emails from the denialists leaked into the public domain.”

Unfortunately they get lost . buried under the avalanche of pro-AGW lies and phoney research papers

Wobbles point about sceptic emails being leaked is flawed.All the sceptics want is an open and honest debate.We have nothing to hide.

rstuart

Yes it would be interesting to see Andy1's answers to my questions.

I think they would be probably be based on info and 'data' from IPCC too. At which I would still be laughing.

Yes I thank Andrew/Andy for the humour they have provided.

I guess you are not laughing though ... I doubt you'd appreciate the irony.

But you know what really astonishes me is the utter lack of comment by the media in Australia about the revelations of Climate-gate and the dishonesty of the climo-nazis.

If you'd read the NYTimes the Washington Post the Manchester Guardian and Fox News you'd understand the ridicule these so-called scientists are drawing.
Anyone in Australia who continues to hang onto the ideas presented by the IPCC are just making complete and utter fools of themselves.

Did you know that the US Senate is being pressured by both Republican and Democrat senators to hold an inquiry into the UN position on climate change and it's misnamed IPCC. One of the reasons OBama cannot promise anything at Copenhagan is that his Democrat controlled Senate cannot pass any climate change mitigation legislation. I cannot wait to see empty vessels like OBama and Rudd speak at Copenhagan. Both represent countries who parliamentery institutions have or are rejecting any sort of emmissions trading or carbon taxing. Laughable isn't it as these two think they lead the world.

keith: "what really astonishes me is the utter lack of comment by the media in Australia about the revelations of Climate-gate"

It shouldn't keith. The nasty gossip like tone in the emails would be good fodder for a society column I guess, but your average gossip column reader is used to a far better class of snipe than your average scientist can muster.

As for the impact on the science, it is unlikely there will be any. The data they talk about tweaking in the emails is decades old, and all but 5% of it has been publicly available for most of that time. As a consequence everyone who wanted to do their own analysis of it has done so. For example Steve Mcintyre did his own analysis, and disagreed with the conclusions the CRU and other scientists came up with. I believe the climate scientists ended up agreeing some of their tweaks were in fact wrong, fixed them and thanked Steve for his contribution. However on the whole there is general agreement among the scientists that the conclusions in the published papers were sound despite these fixes.

The IPCC's job is to survey and summarise the scientists peer reviewed papers into a form digestible by us plebs. As their report is based on published peer reviewed papers and not emails, it should be unaffected. This assumes the IPCC authors they did their job honestly, but if they didn't you would have expected to see an outcry from climate scientists about how their view were miss-represented, and that hasn't happened.

Which leaves the political sphere, where the emails are definitely producing a lot noise as the political tribes use them as a proxy for their never ending word wars. However as you can see from above they should not have any substantive effect beyond that, and newspapers usually only report on meaningful political clashes - ie those between our politicians. That is why you haven't seen much about it. Given they are little more than gossip fodder, I hope it stays that way.

"Socialism by stealth" Col Rouge?

As practiced by such well-know lefty climate-change adherents as Obama, the Pope, the Dalai Lama and the Queen, just to name a few?

Arjay, an open and honest debate is OK by me and long as it excludes half-truths and lies from both sides.

Wobbles,

The "denialists" emails would be directly lifted from the tobacco lobby of past times;

1. call any opponent a left wing commie
2. deny that smoking causes cancer (the world is warming)
3. justify point 2 by making unsubstantiated assertions that the medical profession is not agreed that smoking is related to cancer
4. develop a "spam" list of doctors who sign a petition that there is no link between cancer and smoking
5. make repeated statements that you only wish to have a true debate on the issue while always referring to 1,2,3,4 above but never address the reality
6. call for a senate inquiry or Royal commission; as if they somehow are in a better position than the "experts" to assess the scientific/medical issues
7. find a group of doctors who are sure there is no link between smoking and cancer (plenty of those as they are on the Rothmans payroll)

As a "catastrophic fire warning" in NSW is issued today and we have had the hottest November ever and the country suffers the worst drought in recent times there is of course no evidence of global warming and so we should leave these forums to the denialists who can muse over the global conspiracy headed by the IPCC