Andy1
Since you obviously missed the questions in my last post, I’ll repeat them for you –one at a time:

What do you suppose this means: “No RISE of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction IN PAST 160 YEARS”
This is'nt some denialist make-up –it's from Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol, and here’s his abstract:

“Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.”

It seems to run directly counter to the core AGW argument that the earth’s natural CO2 sinks are weakening—indicating instread, that natural sinks have been expanding as anthropogenic CO2 emissions have increased.

I look forward to your full & thorough rebuttal/explanation —without the cephalopod-esque "flee quickly, expel ink, or use color-changing camouflage" response.

In closing last time you said:
“Those who believe they have credible data and arguments which contradict a relation between anthropogenic CO2 and climate change, ought to formulate it in quantitative terms …”

Seems a bit rich coming from someone who stakes his faith on reports that declare:
“These models DO NOT YET INCLUDE many processes and reservoirs that may be important, such as peat, buried carbon in permafrost soils, wild fires, ocean eddies and the response of marine ecosystems to ocean” [ "may be important"?--what an understatement!]

<A massive denial campaign waged by a coalition of contrarians supported by fossil fuel interests is holding the world to ransom. These people include ex-lobbyists of tobacco companies - who all of a sudden have become interested in climate science; medieval fundamentalists - who regard climate change in terms of God’s will to purify the Earth; believers in human supremacy over nature; socially backward think tanks; some economists; and a few engineers and ego-driven ex-professionals who appear to confuse the weather with the climate.>

Andy, you need help. This is serious conspiracy theory territory.
Perhaps your next article should be written for the Fortean Times.

Can you produce a single fact to support any one of your assertions?

Speaking of weather, a couple of weeks ago the Sydney weather forecast was seriously wrong for the entire week. Yet the Andy Glikmans of the world reckon they can tell us what the entire global climate is going to be like a hundred years from now.

You hearing voices, Andy?

“A massive denial campaign waged by a coalition of contrarians…. Caligula waged war on Poseidon”

Such prose, such elegance of word and turn of phrase

It reminds me of a past English King who, at the town of my birth, commanded the tide to retreat.

Canute was not testing the strength of his divine right but demonstrating his humility.

His intention was to show to his court that whilst he may be a king, he was only human and not a force capable of competing with nature.

And now we have AGW theorists and zealots intent on demonstrating their ability to turn back the tide, to influence nature and turn it to their will.

However, they intend to do it not bu their own effort but by taxing the efforts of the rest of humanity.

They intend to impose

Socialism by Stealth

On the inventive efforts of their fellow men

They intend to inflict ETS and increasing taxes on people, justified by their efforts to turn back the tide.

Even though AGW is just a bunch of garbled theories,

Zealots are driving us all to suffer the whimsy of their foolhardy dogma and the consequences of their unproven and unjustified strategies.

No longer will you just buy gas or electricity or products from milk to cars

Now you will buy them and pay an additional ETS tax/cost for the privilege.

Margaret Thatcher wrote

"The larger the slice taken by government, the smaller the cake available for everyone."

ETS will end up as a lessening of your individual and personal discretionary purchasing power and more money for the state, to squander on lavish temples for worshipping the power of the state.

All just more resources needed to impose the

Socialism by Stealth

Which has repeatedly failed throughout history

AGW will be seen as just another fraud of an environmental movement infiltrated by collectivists and anarchists

Lenin described AGW:

“A lie told often enough becomes the truth”



As for “denialists” counter-conspiracies

Galileo denied "conventional wisdom", that the sun rotated around the earth and suffered the condemnation of the “authorities” too.

Some questions:

A) If scientists only want money, why would they go to the trouble of rigging a global conspiracy and faking data when they could just work for the denialist lobby and make a mint? Industry is pouring billions into fake think tanks and professional obfuscators. Why aren't the IPCC scientists jumping ship and going where the money is?

B) Where is the evidence of fraud in the CRU emails? I've asked this question dozens of times since they were released, but even the most committed inactivists seem unable to point out where the wrongdoing is. It seems that the emails are only evidence of fraud to those who already believed in a vast conspiracy. Even the 9/11 "truthers" have higher standards of proof.

C) Still waiting for an answer to mikk's excellent question: "If you think the thousands of scientists supporting AGW are wrong then why don't you think the thousands of scientists working on health, drugs, genetics, technology, IT et al are wrong and why do you still trust their products? Why/how can you trust your medicine, doctor, computer, electric gadgets etc etc if scientists are all part of some global conspiracy?"

Yes, why? All these fields operate to the same standards and proofs as climate science, so where is the massive "sceptical" opposition to discoveries there? And don't bother with the price tag rubbish. Australia sinks billions into medical and agricultural science each year, but you never hear inactivists whining about the government digging into taxes for that.

Funny, isn't it, that all of these scientific critics only emerged after backlash from the industry lobby and its pet politicians. You'd almost think the "scepticism" is entirely ideological.

Hear we go again with denilist coming out of the woodwork calling people names as that is all they can do.

Most have no ability to analysis the data or even understand it and reiterate information that is put up by others that do not know what they are talking about.

Climategate came up with a fat nothing.

And again people get confused about weather and climate trends hence the recent stupid comment on forecasts all it does is to show ignorance.

I suspect that denilists are dead scared that their cozy lifestyle or business is going to suffer.

Not one denilists had provided any evidence to dispute the experts.

I rather believe scientists than the backyard boys that show up on this blog.

Thank you Andrew for providing information that I can understand.

Good of Col to cite Galileo in defence of climate change denialism.

Galileo was persecuted by the Catholic church for using observable, testable evidence to challenge a faith-based status quo which granted the church great power and authority.

So, in the battle of climatology versus big industry, who is the science-wielding Galileo and who is the power-grasping church?