Bushbasher. Beautifully put!
I have acquaintances outside OLO who are loons of the same ilk. With your permission I'll cut and paste your comments above and make epistles of them, however futile.

Andrew, thanks for the links. I did read through "Climate Change Science" during the wee small hours. Nothing new in it, but an overdue revision. The IPCC has long been to conservative in its predictions.

To the wilfully obtuse: are your positions negotiable or amenable to reason, as mine is, as the evidence comes in? Ask yourselves, am I capable of ignoring my prejudices and preconceptions on this debate, and striving to weigh the evidence objectively?
There's no shame in being wrong and admitting it, in fact that would be something to take pride in. There is always, was always, doubt, but that didn't drive the enlightenment philosophers back to scripture, or their insular and selfish cogitations and superstitions.
When disaster looms, thinking people mobilise to confront the threat---but unfortunately there are always those who will stare it in the face and deny it, the witch doctors of the tribe, who bewilder the susceptible and precipitate the disaster.

Andy1
The key question is why someone who has --read all the prescribed texts--has no answer for this finding :“No RISE of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction IN PAST 160 YEARS”

Why someone who is --“an Earth and paleoclimate scientist at the Research School of Earth Science, the School of Archaeology and Anthropology and the Planetary Science Institute, Australian National University-- avoids the issue like some second class politician.

It appears that you are more interested in preserving your sacred status quo than doing the science.

Bushbasher
I have no argument with you that the Aust Govt is now half hearted with regard to many of its promised "green" strategies

Green politics (including AGW advocacy) was a neat little election ploy they used to help paint the opposing group as being, in general, yesterdays leaders & out of touch.

But having arrived in government, and seeing some of the costs of their promises, they are now hedging--but what's new, we see that after every election, on a range of issues.

Nice try KenH - you want the debate to return to the comfortable denialist ground of rejecting every bit of evidence. That is why I am suggesting a change to the proposition. I am not asking you to prove anything, I am simply asking denialists to clearly state what evidence would convince them that AGW is occurring. I'd like to hear what is the nature of the evidence, how it should be reviewed and published and any other criteria you might have for establishing its validity. The problem at the moment is that denialists are implicitly rejecting not only the science but well established scientific methodology and scientific review processes. So far, not a single substantive answer. Lots of evastion. What a surprise.

" Cheap ad-hominem abuse of environmentalists and scientists is hardly a substitute to an intelligent debate" Says Andy1

And quite so as well. But you should be directing his comments to the author (I am assuming that ANDy1 and the auther are not the same person..) who doesnt mind having swipe at everything with his totally unsubstantiated bitch as to the " massive denial campaign by a coaalition of contrarians..?

But to compound his hypocrisy he remains silent about the nefarious conflicts of interest of the illustrious IPCC Chairman Pachauri, whose position gets more odious and untenable by the day.

To those who say that one cannot criticise climate science without criticising all science, there is of course no comparison.Most of the other sciences have better developed ethical and professional standards, and further;

1.Other sciences are not the child of some UN subsidiary and thereby subject to its whims and venalities.

2.Involve scientists who are almost totally the beneficiary of public funding mechanisms.

3.Involved in a political process called the IPCC reports which is procedurally flawed to hell in a way that would not be tolerated in other disciplines.

4.Involved in a cause that is even to this day, is a political issue, and thats before there is any science worth considering

5.Involves people in key research institutions who are the beneficiaries of chunks of money that were handed over for purely political timings and ends.

6. Involved in a cause whereby the greeny NGO's are within their own ranks and influencing what is said and how it is said.

7.Involved in an area whereby there is deliberate misuse of key words such as climate change in a significant way (the definition was changed in a IPCC report,as a foot note), overiding that authorised by the UNFCC.

Cimategate and hockeystick, MET office connections to eading advocates, and the money making antics of Gore and Pachauri,as well as the shonkiness of Mann, Hansen, Jones, Briffa et al are all just examples of why the communty should be wary of anything these people have to say.

bigmal well said, the AGW believer attempt to try to turn all skeptics into flat earth troglodytes lives on. Have you seen the latest twist to skeptics and pseudo skeptics - talk about a lack of firepower if that's all you've got - trying to tweak your insults. Climatology is the only science involved in prophecy, which is why it should be cast out until such methods are put back in their place, as a tool.

Next - the evidence skeptics want is constantly stated. We all accept climate changes, no problem, your side states that it is manmade CO2 that is contributing to extra, and about to be out of control, warming (tipping points are mentioned constantly) but there is no "evidence" only models and coincidence and now we find CRU has convoluted data to match its narrative as the world is not warming as the predictions call for. Why do you keep saying no one ever says what skeptics want to see?

viking 13, why am I not surprised at the government wanting to control data, to match their politics.

Andy1 "THE KEY QUESTION IS WHETHER DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING OR NOT." no it is not, the key question is whether man is contributing and if so how much. Methinks you are becoming shrill because of your own vested interests in this and thus are no longer objective, what a sad time for science when a bunch of self centered types are skewing science for their own pride and incomes.

Your post above is a twisted attempt to turn the argument back onto skeptics (denialists as you prefer to call anyone who has a different opinion) "Some denialists are fraudulently fabricating data and numbers" where did that come from? You made it up to make your point since you position is so weak.

Andy1, you are a dishonest person and you r posts on top of this article to nothing to change that, in fact your posts underline your inherent dishonesty.

Next. You ask: "I am simply asking denialists to clearly state what evidence would convince them that AGW is occurring. I'd like to hear what is the nature of the evidence."

I am a sceptic, not a 'denialist'. But I will seek to answer your question anyhow.

1. The first thing I would accept would be a temperature record that has been prepared without unseemly adjustments to early 20th C temperatures. One where delta UHI effects have been properly accounted for. And where temperature data collection processes and equipment comply with accepted standards. Oh. And one where the population of temperature stations is continuous for the period under review. I haven't seen one of those yet. Have you?

Note that glacier retreat, melting Arctic ice, droughts etc are complex issues that may or may not be related to 'warming'.

2. The second thing would be evidence that man-made CO2 emissions are actually causing warming (if indeed warming is happening at all). The proposition that doubling CO2 levels will lead to substantial (ie 3-5 Deg C) warming is not proven. Most would accept around 1 deg C (ignoring for the moment the logarithmic decay effect), but higher levels depend on unproven assumptions re positive feedback effects.

3. The third thing I would seek is some evidence/discussion regarding land-use factors and the impact of that on local and regional climate. Man is clearly having impacts. These issues are much more important than CO2, but largely ignored by the AGW proponents.