Because of this continuing AGW fiasco Scientists and Science is unfortunately rapidly losing credibility. Any scientist, no matter how credible who doesn't believe in AGW is immediately dismissed and personally discredited. Science has never been like this before in the Western world.

Case in point is Professor Nils Axel-Morner, formerly the pre-eminent world expert in Sea level measurement. He has 190 peer reviewed scientific papers in the field.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5067351/Rise-of-sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html

"When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown."

Recently character assassination attempts have been made to discredit him on a personal level because he can't be discredited on a scientific level.

Sadly, Maldives inhabitants reported a group of IPCC supporting Australian Scientists destroyed evidence against AGW on the Maldives by pulling out a tree which stood by the shoreline for 50 years. Now that is very scary.

A medieval anti-science climate appears to have descended, where Daniel Moynihan's dictum "everyone is entitled to his opinion but not to his facts" is forgotten.
http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2218

Four years ago, public relations executive James Hoggan began looking more deeply into the issue of global warming. The more he read, the clearer it became that the overwhelming majority of the world’s scientists, representing the globe’s leading scientific institutions and academies, agreed on the basic facts: The world was heating up rapidly, industrial activity was driving much of that warming by pumping heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and continued temperature rises threatened the relatively stable climate under which civilization had flourished for the past 12,000 years.

Yet despite this near-unanimity in the scientific community, Hoggan realized that some segments of the mainstream media and an overwhelming majority in the conservative media were telling another story: The world might not be warming, and even if it is, that could be a good thing. Little evidence exists that humanity is influencing climate, the story line went, and spending billions of dollars to tackle a problem that might not exist is folly.

Hoggan began looking into what he describes as a well-funded and highly organized PR campaign designed to do one thing: sow doubt among the general public about the reality of global warming, thereby staving off government regulation of greenhouse gases. The more he looked, he says, the more outraged he became, leading to the creation of the well-known Desmogblog ­ whose stated mission is “Clearing the PR Pollution that Clouds Climate Science” ­ and a new book, entitled Climate Cover-Up.

The DeSmogBlog site is probably the worst offender when it comes to character assassination of Scientists with other opinions. They are blitzing the internet currently with their propaganda, claiming to be objective observers. They are heavily funded to do so. Their attacks are vicious, personal and not on a scientific level.

"DeSmogBlog, which is dedicated to claiming that climate skeptics are paid shills, happens to be run by James Hoggan and Associates, a PR agency that actually received the $300-large from the NETeller executive. His PR firm represents “alternative energy” companies, as well. Adding to the conflicts, Hoggan is also chair of the board of directors for the David Suzuki Foundation, a radical environmental activist group run by a man who — ironically — calls for climate skeptics to join Lefebvre in jail. This spin machine is aimed at discrediting skeptics."

That climate changes over a period of time is not under dispute. It also seems likely that CO2 levels change from time to time. According to Plimer there is a 180 year record of atmospheric CO2 measurements. In the nineteenth century this would have been performed by chemical titration. In the middle of that century the method described by von Pettenkofer (a scientific polymath) became popular. The level of the trace gas shows seasonal variation, variation with off shore and on shore winds and sampling over hot or cold water masses.

Since 1959 the Mount Loa infra-red spectroscopy method became standard, but has never been cross correlated with Pettenkoffer’s method (Plimer page 416).

The measurement of mean global temperature is also under dispute consider numerous graphs on the internet from Air Surface Temperature, Satellite measurements or weather balloon measurements, ocean temperatures etc.

Please how can you average this mishmash to make a useful “mean value?”

Assume for a moment that CO2 and temperature measures are reliable. One can not argue that a correlation by least squares, or a computer model is the proof of a causal relationship.

The story is even more complex because the carbon cycle is itself a complex of geological, biological and human factors.

Further the relationship between CO2 levels and infra red absorption is logarithmic so a change from say I to 100 ppm would be significant; a change from say 380+/-100 ppm much less so.

In my view the authors have not proved a causal relationship between CO2 of anthropogenic origin and global climate

And of course global warming is the cause of Washington DC today having the greatest December snowfall on record?

Care to explain how that has occurred when temperatures are supposedly rising. Surely common sense dictates if global warming was occurring the snowfall levels would be decreasing and not at record levels.

If you accept the argument heatwaves are the result of rising temperatures you cannot possible deny that record snowfalls are the result of falling tenperatures. That is pure logic.

The sciene is settled ! What a joke!

So let me get this straight. You guys (Barrie and Andrew) and CSIRO are telling us that this drought (unlike all the other droughts that have afflicted Australia since settlement) is largely caused by rising CO2 levels due to anthropogenic emissions. The problems of the Murray Darling basin are also largely due to this cause?

And you are telling us that if the world is able to lower CO2 levels from current levels, the droughts will disappear, and everything will be sweet in the Murray Darling basin?

Let me tell you something Barrie and Andrew. I DO NOT BELIEVE YOU!

I am not saying that anthropogenic factors are not a factor in droughts. However, it has NEVER been demonstrated that CO2 is the problem. And I challenge you now to show that.

Man IS having a major impact on local and regional climate, but it is due to land-use factors (deforestation, dams, draining wetlands, irrigation, industrial monoculture agriculture) and resultant interference in natural hydrological cycles. Roger Pielke Sr is a credible scientist arguing this, and he provides heaps of references in support of his views.

In the meantime, all that you guys have are your 'beliefs' which are apparently supported by models. Never mind that (as the CRU e:mail affair is demonstrating) the models have not been developed in accordance with professional software development standards, have not been independently checked and verified, and apparently can never be disclosed to interested parties, we are simply supposed to trust your bold assertions.

Something is happening here. And you don't know what it is. Do you, Mr Jones (and Mr Pittock and Mr Glickson).

Keith

Global warming does not mean increased temperatures every year every where.

It does mean (amongst other things) increasingly more intense and more frequent weather events. For example, longer heat waves here in OZ and sharper cold spells in the higher latitudes.

The frequency and intensity of these extreme weather events is a consequence of the Earth system trying to restore equilibrium. The more energy you put into a system, the harder the system tries to maintain the equilibrium.

This increased energy is not coming from the Sun, cosmic rays, volcanoes, or any other known natural causes. It is coming from billions of tonnes of GHG's that we are releasing into the atmosphere. Billions of tonnes of carbon that the natural sinks can't adsorb at the same rate it is being released.

Averaged over time to filter noise and natural variability from the signal (climate), the trend is up.

Herbert stencil,
Can I humbly suggest you read the article instead of scanning it
The article states Para 4
">While it is natural to attribute increasingly severe weather-related events to human-induced climate change, science cannot be 100 per cent certain with regard to any particular individual event. Rigorous science deals in changing probabilities and risk. The science community says the chances are high that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations are at least partly to blame for more extreme conditions.<"

then in Para 8
>"According to scientists in the joint CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research (CAWCR) human-induced climate change is *likely* to be a *major* cause of this “drought”."< (*emphasis is mine on key words)

Chop the trees down en mass you cause hot air to rise effecting the climate.
Check out the clearing patterns of SA, Vic and Sthn. NSW over the last 150 years.

Then come back and ask questions.
__________________________

anti-green,
Plimers contribution to this debate has been arguably akin to Von Daniken's "Chariots of the Gods" was to archeology. Made him some money but scientifically dubious.

The below site is a scientific review of his book 300 odd errors, misinterpretations etc. The article is well referenced.
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer2a0.pdf

Examinator. I have re-read the post. Pittock and Glikson go on (in scary language) about the major impacts of "human induced climate change" but they fail to define what they mean by that. If indeed they mean a combination of land-use factors and CO2 (or more strictly 'greenhouse' emissions including CH4), then why do they conclude their piece with this: "In reality, climate change impacts are already costing lives and billions of dollars. These costs will increase rapidly if we do not act to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."

My problem is that, as even you appear to acknowledge, land-use factors could be a factor in 'climate change', as could CO2 and CH4 emissions. Natural factors could also play a role.

If this is so, then why are Pittock and Glikson focussing on reducing greenhouse gas emissions without recommending action of any other kind to deal with the real issues? I don't get it. Rudd and Co have just invested a huge amount of effort, time and money in trying to impose on us an ETS scheme that can only be characterised as costing us all a lot of money, yet having no measurable impact on CO2 emissions. Meanwhile, everybody is more or less silent on the other factors.

In fact, land-use factors can be addressed, whereas CO2 likely cannot. Why don't we work on the issues we can manage as opposed to those we cannot? And why can we not have clarity about the issues, instead of the scary stuff?

Examinator

It is not my duty to defend Plimer or otherwise. However, as a member of the Australian electorate it is my duty to convince myself that there is a causal relationship between anthropogenic carbon dioxide and climate change. On the evidence to hand I am not convinced.

Given that the discussion is as much a matter of public policy as scientific controversy, I suggest that the best forum to determine the issue is a “Royal Commission.” Thus the arguments of the principal protagonists then can be tested by vigorous cross examination.

Q& A

Of course you are going to supply me with the (verifiable) supporting evidence for all the generalisations and assertions you've made in your missive to me. Now be clear, I don't want explanations I want verifiable evidence.

I'll detail them:

1.'Global warming does not mean increased temperatures every year every where.'

2. 'It does mean (amongst other things) increasingly more intense and more frequent weather events.'

3. What the hell does 'more frequent weather events' mean? Is there going to be more weather?

4.'The frequency and intensity of these extreme weather events is a consequence of the Earth system trying to restore equilibrium.'

5. The Earth System is out of Equilibrium.

6. 'The more energy you put into a system,...'. Is there more energy than previously? How much and what is your reference point?

7. 'This increased energy is not coming from the Sun, cosmic rays, volcanoes, or any other known natural causes.'

8.'It is coming from billions of tonnes of GHG's that we are releasing into the atmosphere.'

9. 'Averaged over time to filter noise and natural variability from the signal (climate), the trend is up.'

In relation to 9 isn't that what those totally discredited people at the Hadley Centre in the East Anglia University did. You know the ones who analysed the raw temperature data then produced the hockey stick graph and who supplied their version and intrepretation of the data, which shows rising temperatres, to the UN committee on Climate Change? The same ones who now claim to have lost the raw data so that their calculations and assertions cannot now be verified.

I think it is good you've shown you are prepared to debate the issues and not blindly chant mantra. Good on you. I wish you luck because we doubters are ready with our inquisitiveness.

Thanks Examinator
At last someone can explain the connection between vegetation removal and global warming.
"Chop the trees down en mass you cause hot air to rise effecting the climate.
Check out the clearing patterns of SA, Vic and Sthn. NSW over the last 150 years."
At least you left out Queensland and I guess you mean "affecting".

>>Because of this continuing AGW fiasco

huh? what exactly are you calling a fiasco, and why?

>> Scientists and Science is unfortunately rapidly losing credibility

what's your evidence for that?

>> Any scientist, no matter how credible who doesn't believe in AGW

name one. give me a specific "credible scientist" who doesn't believe in AGW.
how do you determine that they are credible?

>> is immediately dismissed and personally discredited

evidence?

>> On the evidence to hand I am not convinced

i see. the overwhelming view of thousands of climatologists doesn't convince you. what would?

>> I suggest that the best forum to determine the issue is a “Royal Commission.”

why on earth would you trust a politically designed forum over the scientific method and the scientific community? which political party do you regard as having more integrity than the scientific community?

Examinator, there is no proof that emissions from human activity have any discernible effect on global warming or climate change. Australia’s emissions constitute less than one millionth part of the atmosphere.

The effect of human emissions is so small as to be negligible, which is the reason that despite applying billions of dollars to scientific research, those promoting the scenario have been unable to produce proof of something that is not happening.

To promote the scam, the IPCC put forward the assertion that it is “extremely likely”, which has the same scientific validity as an assertion that it is extremely unlikely.

We have a sprinkling of dishonest posters here saying that “thousands of scientists” back this nonsense, which is completely untrue. The pro-warmecile works are full of weasel words like “could”, “may”, “might”, “expected”, “would” and so forth. They are designed to mislead people into supporting the AGW scam.

When the support for the “very likely” proposition of the IPCC is analysed there are 5 independent scientists willing to support it, not 2500 as asserted by the IPCC.

Scientists, among the 2500 employed to contribute reports, who protest that the IPCC Summary does not represent the science which they have contributed, are ignored. Their names remain as contributors, despite their requests for removal, if the Summary is not corrected.

Climategate shows the calibre of the scientists who have contributed to the efforts of the IPCC to deceive people into backing the scam, designed to enrich, among others, Gore, Pachauri and the IPCC.

The East Anglia gang of scientists, have employed dishonest methods to "hide the decline" and pretend global cooling is not occurring, while CO2 is rising, and have reviewed each other's spurious science, in order to claim their much vaunted "peer review", which they have rendered meaningless.

Examinator, I have looked at the critique of Ian Plimer’s superb book.

Plimer’s book presents a difficult subject with remarkable clarity.

The reviewer has found 300 points of criticism. This is a sample:

“11. p. 22: Referring to the ‘hockey stick’ in the 2001 IPCC WG1 report: It was highlighted on the first page of the Summary for Policymakers and was shown another four times in the 2001 Summary for Policymakers. Since there are only five figures in the 2001 WG1 SPM, this would imply that all figures in the SPM include the ‘hockey stick’. This is quite simply false.

12. p. 22: The IPCC, without explanation, quietly withdrew the “hockey stick” from the Summary for Policymakers in subsequent publications and had it buried in a scientific chapter of the 2007 report. with the footnote 24 noting as one of the reconstructions of past climate. The reconstructions, including that from Mann et al., are also in the technical summary (figure TS.20) of the 2007 report — [DK].”

The first point is that Plimer said the discredited “hockey stick” of Mann (one of the East Anglia miscreants), which was featured in the 2001 IPCC Summary appeared 4 times in the document. The reviewer says it did not appear so many times. So what? It appeared in the IPCC Summary, and it was a false document.

The next point is that the document was withdrawn by the IPCC from subsequent Summaries. The point raised by the reviewer is that it had two mentions in the 2007 Report, and not one as stated by Plimer. What possible significance does that have? Is the IPCC twice as arrogant for having mentioned it twice, after it was discredited?

In 14 the reviewer says Plimer is wrong about global cooling, because there is a record from HADCRUT (East Anglia “hide the decline” crew) showing a couple of warm years. Plimer referenced an honest record.

You no doubt have not read the critique, or Ian Plimer’s book, Examinator, before wasting everyone’s time.

examinator: "Plimers contribution to this debate ..."

We are clashing elsewhere, and I am afraid we will clash here too. In the end I think Plimers contribution has proved very useful.

Normally when somebody with say an arts degree makes outrageous about climate science the scientists don't bother to dignify the claims with a reply. It is all very well for the scientists - they know what what is rubbish and what is not. It is not so easy for us to see behind the smokescreens.

Plimer, being a scientist himself, was different. People who he worked with came out and said he was outright lying in how it cited their work, and the conclusions they came to. At least one of there had been a friend of Plimer's for decades. Then of course we have Plimer's bombastic stonewalling of Monbiot's simple questions for all to see on Lateline.

So unlike our arts degree commentator's, the evidence that Plimer has set aside all objectivity in order to chase some personal daemons is plain. No one can read what has been said then claim the man represents his peers, speaks with authority, or is honest and forthright. Given that, no one with a genuine interest in debating the science would cite Plimer. It is not like there aren't many creditable sources out there for just about any point of view.

This is what makes Plimer is so useful. Anyone who quotes him as a expert is branding themselves as being just like him. As Monbiot discovered it is an absolute waste of time engaging such people. They should be avoided like the plague. Never before have I found such a good indicator of this attitude as Plimer. Whether he deliberately set out to do this or not, I think the man is a bloody legend.

If anyone here is unfamiliar with what I am talking about, here are some references:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2589206.htm
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/story-e6frg8no-1225710387147
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2586947.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2009/12/15/2772906.htm

It is a characteristic of the alarmist side of the climate debate to be selective in the references they quote, and Andrew Glikson is no different. He says the 2003 heat wave in Europe is well documented and quotes the estimate of 35,000 heat related deaths, a figure which originated from the green group Earth Policy Institute. He could of course be a little more wide ranging in his research and quote the World Health Organisation which estimates an average of more than 200,000 deaths each year from excess heat in Europe but 1.5 million deaths from excess cold. The reason he doesn't quote the WHO is of course obvious – it doesn’t fit his agenda to do so.
Sea level rise is quoted as 1-3 metres by the year 2100. But there has been no increase in the rate of rise during the last 100 years (about 0.2metre), and even the agenda-driven IPCC only estimates about 0.7 metre for the next hundred years. Since satellite data became available for sea level rise about 15 years ago there has been no increase in the rate of rise, and indeed no rise at all since 2005.
It is even suggested that should sea level rise by the amount quoted by Glikson and Pittock we will move inland to escape it because it will be too costly to build walls. What nonsense! We will do what the Dutch have been doing for hundreds of years and are still doing – prepare for natural events which sooner or later may happen.

Mention is made of the three megabushfires, 2003, 2006/07 and 2009 and attribution is made to global warming/climate change.
In fact, these blazes were the direct result of the cessation of fuel reduction measures in 1981 when the Minister for Conservation directed his Chief Fire Commissioner to cease fire prevention burns.
That Commissioner, Mr Hodgson is still alive and has told me of that event. He added that it was later confirmed by the next Minister, Mrs Joan Kirner.
Also, around 1993 or 94 a decision was made to close all fire access tracks as future fires would be fought from the air. I was at a meeting of the Government's Four Wheel Drive Committee when this was announced. In fact it was only the effective lobbying by the 4WD Clubs that prevented this.
History tells us that, at the 1998 Caledonia River fires, aircraft were found to be ineffective and bulldozers were brought in to re open fire access tracks. The main problem that followed was that, by 2003, the lessons of Caledonua were not given consideration and the results are now a part of history.
The three fires, as disastrous as they were to both human as well as native fauna lives, indicate that cool burning saves the lives of humans as well as native flora and fauna. Water supplies are adveresely affected by mega fires as regrowth uses available moisture.
Last month the USA's Association of Fire Ecology, in their Position Paper http://www.fireecology.net/ described cool burning (or whatever name you wish to call it) as essentia to preserve the old growth timber that is such an important part of the climate change debate. Destroy a 500 year old tree and a lot of CO2 is released.
Fuel Reduction Burning has never been needed as much as it is now; the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.

Al Gore could sell shoes to a snake."..I took the initiative in creating the internet." http//:www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnFJ8cHAIco&feature=related

Now they are all in climategate damage control,spinning the planet off it's axis with even more distortions and falsehoods.

Read basic text books in climate science and re-aquaint with the laws of physics and chemistry instead of raising conspiracy theories against the world's premier climate science organizations, including NASA/GISS, NSIDC, Hadley-Met, Tyndall, Potsdam, CSIRO, BOM, and thousands of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals, not to mention direct observations around the globe of melting ice sheets and mountain glaciers, trippling sea level rise rates, intensifying hurricanes and long-term to semi-permanent droughts caused by migration of climate zones and the mid-latitude high pressure ridges toward the poles.

Since the industrial revolution in the mid-18th century, combustion of fossil fuel resulted in the emission of more than 320 billion tons of carbon (BtC) in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2). This is more than half the pre-industrial carbon content of the atmosphere of 590 BtC. About 200 BtC stayed in the atmosphere, raising CO2 concentration from 280 parts per million (ppm) to the current level of 388 ppm. When the effects of the gas methane (CH4) are included the total greenhouse effect (CO2-e), the total rise of greenhouse gases is equivalent to 460 ppm CO2.

Consistent with the basic laws of physics and chemistry, experimental evidence and direct observations in nature, greenhouse gases (water vapour [H2O], carbon dioxide [CO2], methane [CH4], Nitric oxide [N2O], ozone [O3] and other gases) possess heat-absorbing and heat-emitting capacity. This characteristic arises from the translation of heat into kinetic energy (internal vibration of gas molecules) and, conversely, of kinetic energy to heat. The concentration of greenhouse molecules in the atmosphere thus acts as a ‘warm blanket’ without which the mean temperature of the Earth surface would have been about 30oC lower than the present mean level of about 14oC.

Andy1 prefers conspiracy theories against skeptical people and people who are in the "don't know" category.

One of the premier climate organizations have just just seriously damaged not just themselves but that entire niche of science.

Give it up Andy1, after your attempt to prop up desmogblog as a reputable objective organization and flog a book, you certainly lack any credibility now to point the bone at any one else.

Anyone would think you're making a buck out of this Andy1?

Are you being paid in relation to AGW? Are you part of a group, PR group are you Andrew Glikson? Propping up your puff piece? If you are you should really state that, but of course, honesty is not expected with AGW believers, is it?

Odo your comment, just posted, is in great contrast to that by Andy1.
Andy 1 has appealed for some reading to be done. Your response was almost exclusively vituperation against his character; sure to be applauded by people of like mind to your own. However, any sane person reading this blogsite and wanting to be informed would find greater appeal in Andy1’s comment. However rational this statement of mine might be, I doubt if it will be well received.

Rapid climate change is happening in the present time, as manifested by polar ice melt, sea level rise, extensive droughts in Australia, China, Argentina and the US, extreme weather events, and acidification of the oceans. Climate scientists have projected the current trends since the 1980s, including authorities such as Professor James Hansen and his group (NASA), Professor Wally Broecker (Columbia University), Dr Barrie Pittock, Dr Graeme Pearman and Dr Ian Enting (CSIRO). The atmospheric energy rise exerted by the well-mixed greenhouse gases, mainly CO2 and methane, is consistent with the basic laws of physics and chemistry and with calculations and observations in nature and the laboratory. Measurements of solar radiation and cosmic rays rule out these factors as drivers of climate change since the mid-20th century. The fast rise in carbon emissions (41% since 1990) is driving global temperature, ice melt rates and sea levels. The zigzag nature of temperature rise since the mid-1970s results from the combination of the warming trend with (A) the natural El-Nino – La-Nina cycle (ENSO – El Nino Southern Oscillation) driven by ocean current pulsations, and (B) the 11 years-long sun spot cycle. This results in an overall rising zigzag pattern of temperature change. As temperature increase, reflecting the level of energy in the atmosphere-ocean-land system, the amplitude of climate variability and the likelihood of extreme weather events increase. This may involve periods of relative stability followed by abrupt tipping points, namely, sharp shifts in the state of the atmosphere.

Dear Barrie and Andrew, since the IPCC and their contributing authors are the only authorized international franchise on AGW, any science, from whatever source that is not submitted and accepted by the IPCC it is just more research and opinion, unofficial.

It seems like the two of you have been on the Christmas “tipple” a little early. Why don’t the two of you have a good festive season, chill out and come back in the New Year, then ask two questions of the IPCC. Please post any answers obtained.

Q1, please provide any evidence whatsoever, of global warming and Q2, if there is evidence, please explain any links to atmospheric carbon.

I fully accept that you will have to put your questions on hold until the conclusion of the various investigations taking place. That’s OK; it appears we can wait after all.

Jolly Hockey Sticks chaps.

>> any science, from whatever source that is not submitted and accepted by the IPCC
>> it is just more research and opinion, unofficial.

nonsense.

>> Q1, please provide any evidence whatsoever, of global warming and
>> Q2, if there is evidence, please explain any links to atmospheric carbon.

then should we summarise proust?

Andy1 Will you please stop cutting and pasting bits of propaganda from your favourite websites disguised as you own posts. They are inane pseudo scientific ramblings.

Sea Level is NOT rising. The main expert on this topic has studied the Maldives sea levels rigorously for 20 years.

Here is a Scientific Paper outlining his clear conclusion:

http://www.junkscience.com/jan04/nils-morner_1.pdf

>> Sea Level is NOT rising.

you're sure of that?

>> The main expert on this topic

according to whom?

>> has studied the Maldives sea levels rigorously for 20 years.

and what fraction of the globe is the maldives?

>> Here is a Scientific Paper outlining his clear conclusion:

proving what? if i find another paper in the same journal, with an opposing conclusion, what then?

>> They are inane pseudo scientific ramblings.

it's not clear that you yourself have any idea how science works.

Bushbasher and Andy1, let’s set the record straight on sea levels. During the 20th century, the rate of mean global sea-level rise was 1.8mm per year or 180mm (approximately 7") over the century. The 20th century sea level rise of approximately 1.8mm per year has been calculated, in part, by analysis of 84 tide-gauges. Tide gauges measure sea levels relative to coastal benchmarks.

The tide gauge data correlates closely with coral development data showing a similar rise in sea levels, along with sediment cores that date back to the 1300s and, since the mid-1990s, satellite altimetry. The altimetry shows a slight increase in the global mean sea level (GMSL) of up to 3.2±0.4mm over a 10 year period (1994-04) though this is too short a time period to assume either a long-term trend or an anthropogenic signal; furthermore, a 60-day average smoothing curve indicates sea levels peaking around 2006 and declining by 2008 – again, this is too short a time period to determine long-term trends.

Sea level does not rise or fall uniformly over the oceans, as it is somewhat dependent on ocean heat storage and reflects the inter-annual climate variability connected with ENSO cycles. For instance, during El Ni&#324;o events the eastern Pacific Ocean sea level rises while the western Pacific falls, and vice versa during La Ni&#324;a events. Furthermore, there is an annual hemispheric seasonal variation in sea levels such that there is oceanic expansion during the spring and summer warming and oceanic contraction during the autumn and winter cooling. Just this seasonal and inter-annual variability results in sea level changes of up to ±400mm around the GMSL. This variability alone is sufficient to impact atolls (those island nations located on submerging seamounts – a fact once known by any Year 9 geography student), especially in combination with storm surges and spring tides.

The data to date indicates that there has been no measurable sea level rise due to anthropogenic warming (or at least no apparent signal) during the latter part of the 20th century; rather, the steady increase and very slight acceleration (continued)

(continued) is most likely due to oceanic thermal expansion as the Earth moves out of the Little Ice Age, a centuries-long period of global cooling centred around the 1700s.

Some climate models have suggested that a 0.6ºC to 1ºC rise in global average mean surface air temperature would result in oceanic thermal expansion equating to a sea level rise from about 40 to 80mm over the time of that temperature increase. In addition, a further 0.5mm per year (50mm per century) increase in sea levels could be expected from Antarctic and Greenland ice caps’ meltwater though this would be expected to decline as the marginally warmer temperature increases oceanic evaporation and resultant snowfalls adding more ice to the system. A further 0.5 to 1mm per year (50 to 100mm per century) is estimated to have been added to sea level rise over the past 150 years from melting glaciers, many of which reached their greatest extent during the Little Ice Age – this rate could also be expected to fall if glacially shrinkage continues. Recent satellite altimetry would indicate that even this slow rise is now decelerating.

Therefore, assumed sea level rises over the coming century are likely to be of a similar order, that is, around 180mm or approximately 7", assuming a similar rate of increase. Of course, if the Earth enters another cooling period, as it appears to be currently doing, due to reduced sunspot activity (apparent during 2008-09) and the Pacific Ocean decadal oscillation’s (PDO) reversion back to its cool phase, which occurred around the turn of the 21st century, then one can assume that the oceans will undergo thermal contraction and there will be a steadying or slight fall in global sea levels.

What gets up my nose is that not only is alarmism degrading the noble pursuit of factually-based science it is also an abuse of trust, and the improper use of public funding. Time for a royal commission methinks, and let any publicly-funded scientist who has deliberately obfuscated through omission beware – fraud is a serious crime.

According to the latest reports regarding sea level rise by the CSIRO (Dominique et al., 2008, Improved estimates of upper-ocean warming and multidecadal sea level rise; Nature vol 453, 19 June 2008, Figure 3) The breakdown of sources of sea level rise between 1961-2003 is as follows:

Thermal expansion in the upper 700 m: about 16 mm
Thermal expansion in the deep ocean: about 9 mm
Melting of Antarctica and Greenland ice sheets: about 14 mm
Melting of glaciers and ice caps: about 20 mm
Overall sea level rise 1961 - 2004 of about 60 mm, which renders an average rate of about 1.4 mm/year.

However, as shown by Rahmstorf 2007 (Science, 19 JANUARY 2007 VOL 315 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org) the ratio steepened since about 1980, reaching about 3.5 mm/year by about 2000.

The overall sea level rise between 1880 - 2000 being about 200 mm (Rahmstorf, 2007, Figure 3).

Further updates presented in the 2009 Oxford "Beyond 4 degrees C" conference indicate further steep rise from about 2000 (Rahmstorf, 2009). Estimates of 21st century sea level rise given by Vellinga et al/Katsman et al (for the Netherlands Delta Committee (2008):

An estimate of contributions to global average sea level rise by 2100
in case of 4 degrees global average temprature rise:
• Global mean thermal expansion....0.1 to 0.5 m;
• Small glaciers...................0.1 to 0.2 m;
• Antarctic ice sheet..............0.0 to 0.4 m;
• Greenland ice sheet..............0.1 to 0.2 m;

raredog, i think you missed my point. you and andy1 are free to debate climate science, but i think such debates here are pretty silly, and i will take no part. however, if you are going to attempt argue the science, references are appropriate.

what i don't like is cartoon science a la atman: bold statement with one reference, labelled THE expert, about one tiny part of the globe. that is simply junk.

as for why you think a politically created royal commission has any chance of exhibiting more integrity or accuracy than the scientific community, god only knows.

Andy1. Good information on sea level issues. But tell me. How do you recognise/account for local subsidence/emergence issues, and how they affect recorded sea level. For example, it is well recognised that Port Adelaide is experiencing subsidence due to withdrawal of water from the subterranean water resource. However, the august CSIRO doesn't bother to advise that subsidence is happening, and instead reports rates of sea level rise that are high by Australian standards.

Similarly, Darwin gave an excellent exposition as to why islands in the Pacific (and elsewhere) are subject to rise and fall due to fluctuations in the underlying volcanic edifices

Regarding the methodology of sea level measurements, these are scanned from satellites and tide gauges world-wide, taking local variations into account. The latter include the effects of warm and cold ocean currents, tides, local changes in sedimentation, tectonic uplift and subsidence, gravitational effects of continents and of ice masses and other factors. The USGS monitors sea levels in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. Authorities in Australia include John Church and his group at CSIRO. Look at: http://www.csiro.au/news/OceansWarming.html

On the broader issue, as stated by US Senator John Kerry

“There isn’t a nation on the planet where the evidence of the impacts of climate change isn’t mounting. Frankly, those who look for any excuse to continue challenging the science have a fundamental responsibility which they have never fulfilled: Prove us wrong or stand down. Prove that the pollution we put in the atmosphere is not having the harmful effect we know it is. Tell us where the gases go and what they do. Pony up one single, cogent, legitimate, scholarly analysis. Prove that the ocean isn’t actually rising; prove that the ice caps aren’t melting, that deserts aren’t expanding. And prove that human beings have nothing to do with any of it. And by the way — good luck!”

Andy1 I would not trust a word of John Kerry.Here is a senator who has over $ 30 million invested in US arms suppliers and supports their trumped up wars of aggression based on lies. http://www.wearechange.org/

Play the ball, not the man ...

With the exception of rapid atmospheric changes triggered by major volcanic events, asteroid impacts and methane release, which led to the great mass extinction of species, the current rate of CO2 rise (2005-08: 1.66-2.55 ppm/year) is unprecedented in the recent history of the Earth, driving polar ice melt and sea level rise rates in excess of IPCC projections. Warming of large parts of the Arctic and Antarctic circles by 3-4oC during 1975-2009 (~0.09–0.12 degrees C/year) triggers fast feedback effects from ice melt, albedo loss and open water infrared absorption, and from the carbon cycle. Estimates of future sea level rise derived from 40 years records (1.6-3.7 mm/year), glacier flow rates and ice shelf collapse dynamics, and yet little-quantified positive feedbacks, render exponential to non-linear sea level rise on the scale of tens of meters over the next few centuries possible. The rise in the oceans heat content (1950-2004: 16.10^22 Joules), lowered pH (8.2 - 8.1), and enhancement of the CO3(-2) to HCO3(-) transition, threatens algae, calcifying plankton and reef habitats from shallow habitats to abyssal depths. The rise in CO2 emissions by 41% since 1990, and continuing land clearing, go counter to the urgently required measures at mitigation, massive reforestation, revegetation, application of biochar and chemical draw-down of atmospheric CO2. The best outcomes of the looming Copenhagen climate summit, 25 percent carbon emission reduction relative to 1990 levels, will be unable to arrest the rise of mean global temperatures over 2 degrees Celsius relative to pre-industrial levels. While governments vie to vested interests and economists calculate the “price of the Earth”, underpinned by an ideology of mastery over nature the human denial syndrome is enhanced by a massive disinformation campaign by pro-carbon contrarians, who the basic laws of physics and chemistry and fraudulently alter climate data

So Andy1,you see no conflict of interest here? Kerry becomes a multi-millionaire on the back of illegal wars,yet is to believed as a persurer of truth in the environmental arena? They want the carbon derivatives to trade on the share market to make more profits.They also want the carbon taxes to run their New World Order.

Al Gore the dion of the the AGW movement said in 1995 that he created the internet.What credibility has he? CO2 is not a poison.The world's temps have actually fallen in the last 8 yrs.Climategate wants to "hide the decline."

What is really costing lives is the debt slavery created by the global banksters.They have third world countries in the grip of debt,their living standards won't rise and thus they have numerous children.

No amount of direct observations and measurements will convince those whose objection to science is ideological, rather than a reality check, direct evidence and calculations. With climate one does not even need to look at the science, just travel around the world, look at the devasation inflicted by melting mountain glaciers, droughts, depletion of water resources, intensifying hurricanes and fires. Ask the local farmers about changes in the climate and environment over the last 20-30 years. Parallels include earlier debates regarding ozone depletion, or the link between tobacco smoking and cancer, i.e. wherever such issues affect vested interests. Those who deny realities will avoid debating the science, instead focussing on ad-hominem attacks on environmentalists and scientists, even criticism of the scientific method itself. An echo of medieval times?

Andy1 "Ask the local farmers about changes in the climate and environment over the last 20-30 years." oh yes, and then ask them about 100 years ago etc .. oh, of course, they weren't around, how convenient.

You are a really tricky person with your posts aren't you - much like the CRU crew.

The climate changes, yes, we know - the question is the contribution by man, you are trying to make it out that climate change is caused by man with no evidence other than authority that it is so.

"No amount of direct observations and measurements will convince those whose objection to science is ideological, rather than a reality check, direct evidence and calculations." rubbish, let's get the raw data from CRU, if this were true, why have they fought so hard to keep data private - Steven McIntyre has been requesting raw data for years and gets excuses and no data .. again, tricky manipulation Andrew.

I am ashamed of you being an Australian scientist, you are a disgrace.