rpg

<< "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. >>

I think he is referring to the recent fraudulent conduct carried out by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition – a group of global warming sceptics who themselves got caught tampering with the data for NZ. They made the NZ warming trend ‘go away’. The NZCSC did this by treating measurements from different sites as if they came from the same site. They also claimed that New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research wouldn’t explain how they adjust the data for site changes. That is simply untrue, another lie, rpg.

Or rpg, he may be referring to another story running around the ‘denialosphere’ … one based on a right-wing Moscow think tank (Institute of Economic Analysis) ‘revelation’. The IEA were trying to make a claim against AGW before Copenhagen (like the NZCSC) and it was they themselves who tampered with the CRU data-set for there own ends.

rpg, you go on to accuse the author of dishonesty:

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

Graham Young has accused me of the same thing.

However, when I have the audacity to challenge him – I am threatened with suspension and a “bounce” if ever I accuse another poster of being dishonest.

I see it’s one rule for OLO ‘deniers’ (and those that concur with OLO’s chief editor/moderator’s opinions) and those that have an alternate opinion.

The author (to his credit) replies to comments about his article – however, given comments like yours, I would not be surprised if he just walked away from this anti-science opinion site, imo.

"given comments like yours, I would not be surprised if he just walked away from this anti-science opinion site, imo."

It's been done before: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7580

"I see it’s one rule for OLO ‘deniers’ (and those that concur with OLO’s chief editor/moderator’s opinions) and those that have an alternate opinion."

You'll also find you can't open threads which are too critical of Malcolm Turnbull, because he and his wife have veto over articles and opinions here: http://www.theage.com.au/national/net-journal-cans-turnbull-story-20090715-dli5.html

Q&A

I think you get plenty of leniency on this site. I would suggest that if you and others were to make similar comments on other sites, you would be quickly expelled from them.

But is it of any use to abuse the sceptics? I think that it only draws attention away from the evidence that the sceptics rely on. A case in point was the recent Plimer vs Monbiot spat, where Plimer's strategy seemed to be one of evading any question to cite evidence for his claims, instead frequently citing climategate and complaining about Monbiot's rudeness. I thought that Plimer was looking for any opportunity not to discuss his evidence.

Sancho - You're an avoider of the first order, choosing to ignore relevant articles with links to a UK daily newspaper because you didn't like an earlier link. A bit childish really.

You still, after the third attempt, have not responded to the Pachauri link. Your Head IPCC Climate Scientist (as reported by the BBC) is a Railway Engineer with some economics quals - no climate quals at all. I guess that one's got you completely stumped.

You said "You've completely ignored my question: what does the profiteering of powerful people have to do with the scientific findings of thousand of scientists?"

Your question has been answered on a number of occasions but here we go again. If you spent time to read the earlier posts you would realise that there were NOT thousands of scientists as quoted by the IPCC.

Its actually quite bizarre that you can't see the connection between Al Gore's and others profiteering (which you at least admit) and IPCC climate exaggerations. Hint: Many of the major proponents of the theory have a financial interest in the outcome. The UN IPCC only funded Scientists who believed in AGW and not those who didn't. Again see the Pachauri link.

You said: "And I'd say you're as much a mathematician as I am"

No, in fact its clear you don't understand the fudge factor equation and provide a very strange link to some guy who you think agrees with you.

Its you who has to justify why you believe in this crazy theory so facts and logic would be greatly appreciated.

Q&A people get accused of a lot of things on this site, they are also lambasted and flamed constantly, you yourself are famous for name calling and snide comments, often unsubstantiated. So if you were challenged on a point of dishonesty, it must have been a doozy as you do get lots of bandwidth here for your intolerance, as do others, myself included of course.

So don't come the crying princess with tattle tales, it's out of character.

It's often a robust exchange here, not a debate at all, certainly there is no time or space for genuine discussions on science.

It's an opinion site, but I see some folks explode into demands of proof of anyone's opinion they don't care for, (Sancho is but one of these) You don't answer to me, nor I to you.

Andy1's comment in CAPS, "THE KEY QUESTION IS WHETHER DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE IS HAPPENING OR NOT."

That is clearly a corruption of the truth. The key question remains, is man contributing to climate change and if so, how much, this is yet another attempt to pervert the debate and assumptively close any objection.

The following statements I referred to have not been answered, nor do I expect them to be, that's his call, he can respond, or not, to my opinion.

Whether he takes your hint and takes his bat and ball, as Sancho refers "It's been done before", and goes away from the playing field is his call, he may be made of sterner stuff than you though. I do see though that if he did you would be pleased by the drama it might create, and you could then harp that the skeptics, or as you continue to insultingly refer to skeptics, DENIERS, are to blame.

What a little game you play, little man.

Q & A,

You’re trying to sell us a pup –and a mongrel one at that.

The AGW charge :
--“Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level’ [ IPCC Climate Change 2007:Synthesis Report]
--- “The climate change initially triggered by CO2 emissions in the 20th and 21st centuries will be irreversible for at least 1,000 years” [Solomon et al. 2009 cited by Will Steffen : Climate Change 2009]
It’s pretty clear they’re fingering atmospheric Co2 for the warming.

On the other hand, Knorr has found: “The hypothesis of a recent or secular trend in the AF cannot be supported on the basis of the available data and its accuracy.” “ No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction”

You fudge trying to make it appear such findings are as expected --but that’s demonstrably false.
“Le Que´re´ et al., 2007 ” (Andy1’s favoured source) expected an increase.
Even Knorr --trying to stay on side with the AGW inquisitors -- allows for future increases
But there’s been “NO RISE ” .

And what’s more ---even when the largest sink, the oceans’, uptake have diminished : “The fraction taken up by the oceanic sink, on the other hand, has shown a significant downward trend over the past 40 years, from absorbing about 32% of anthropogenic emissions in 1960 to about 26% now.” [Canadell et al. 2007] . there has been: “ NO RISE of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction”

Where is your , linkage, between temperate rise and Co2 ?

You say: we’ve “got a real risk in [ climate change ] that we should do something about”
Reduce pollution, reduce waste, grow trees, development alternative energy – go for it!
But your mobs most notable achievement to date has been to issue blackmail letters to one half of the world, and tell the other half all they need do is wait for their cheques to roll in (when they’re not making babies