Amicus

I was hoping that the Editor might elucidate on the matter of the contributions that were removed or didn't make it at all. I know that my first contribution was removed and Graham said that he was removing others as well.

As I have no idea as to the content of the others, it could hardly be said that I was "cherry-picking", which Wikipedia defines as:
"..the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking) Other definitions are essentially the same.

If you carefully read my analysis, I am neither taking a position with the data (although I have a position re Monckton), nor ignoring a significant portion of related cases that may contradict that position.

As I quoted before: "Arithmetic is not an opinion"

It's the minimifidianists that "cherrypick", for heaven's sake! And the glaciers "are" actually melting, btw.
All science is fraught by human contamination. The science is never settled--though inferences are legitimately drawn.
On the lag between Co2 and warming: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8
Interesting results, Jedimaster. Monckton is of course himself a celebrated flamer and purveyer of hysterical nonsense, yet we are expected to treat him with respect. The flamers were no doubt merely trying to communicate in his native tongue?

Thank you Mitchell. Your link is an excellent account on how the science works on C02.

Currently, this “little known scientist” the Australian rag refers to, who the Indian press describe as “India’s leading glaciologist and Padamshree recipient,” Professor Syed Iqbal Hasnain, is thankfully studying the effects of black soot on the Himalayas:

http://beacononline.wordpress.com/2009/10/05/environment-soot-clouds-pose-threat-to-himalayan-glaciers/

An article published on Roger Pielke Snr’s blog states:

“According to Prof Graham Cogley (Trent University, Ontario), a short article on the future of glaciers by a Russian scientist: Variations of Snow and Ice in the Past and at Present on a Global and Regional Scale, Technical Documents in Hydrology, estimates 2350 as the year for disappearance of glaciers, but the IPCC authors misread 2350 as 2035 in the Official IPCC documents.”

The document referred to says this on Page 66:

“The extra polar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates— its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 km² by the year 2350."

But the gaggle of geese, the devotees of the Australian tabloid are feasting on the grub that the rag has thrown at them.

For the time being and until the IPCC publishes an account, I shall give credit to the article at denialist, Roger Pielke Snr’s website. Tut tut IPCC. Was the blunder that of the author or is your office typist dyslexic? All will be revealed but dishonest – No! Careless? Perhaps, yet the science on climate change remains sound. That’s good enough!

Naturally any catastrophic events in the year 2350 is of no concern to the denialists and their representative blowhard windbags who eat from the same poisoned tree as the fossil fuel industry.

Before I believe any climate prediction about what will happen by 2350 ( by which time we would all be 400 years old!!), I would like to see an explanation for the causes etc. of 'the little ice-age' _ a well recorded period between 1310 and the mid 1800 i.e. something that actually happened!

I am looking for an explanation which has the consensus of climate scientists.

For a 'science' that still has to prove itself, making predictions well into the future is the easiest game in town!

Jedimaster: In your dreams. You and some others are obviously politically biased. I've read your posts though. Then been directed
to some really corrupted sites like crikey or whatever. Plimer was
right and you have to only google and see Volcanoes do spew up more
clorine than CFC's. Twisted it a bit haven't you. How do you see
now in the Australian The Ice Caps aren't melting. UN figures are
corrupted and gone to watch John Coleman's site.

However ones political viewpoint will never convince some people that
what they believe is biased and based on falsified or corrupted data.
The means to an end, eh? However, most skeptics are not total deniers nor not suggesting do nothing. Obviously pollution certainly in some countries is a health hazard. In stead of saying environmental pollution will cause climate change, lets start on How to clean up our mess! The danger of overstating a point, as it appears to be, is people fear some political conspiracy and do nothing.

“Volcanoes do spew up more clorine (sic) than CFC's. Twisted it a bit haven't you.”

Can I presume you are referring to me Bush Bunny? If so, may I suggest that it is you who is doing the twisting? Is this twisting through ignorance or is it a blatant attempt to corrupt the science?

Volcanic eruptions inject chlorine in the form of hydrogen chloride into the troposphere but they also spew out huge amounts of water vapor. Hydrogen chloride dissolves in water. The chlorine from an eruption rarely reaches the high stratosphere where the ozone layer is. The massive eruptions of El Chichon in Mexico in 1982 and Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 produced very small increases in stratospheric chlorine.

Man-made chlorofluorocarbons are not soluble in water, are long-lived and are the primary source of chlorine in the stratosphere. In fact, their path of destruction is so well demonstrated that even the companies that make those chemicals (after peddling propaganda to the contrary) had to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence .

I am well aware of Plimer’s endeavours to dupe the public but are you suggesting that reputable scientists don’t know the difference between hydrogen chloride and chlorofluorocarbons?

I repeat: Chlorofluorocarbons are man-made and do not exist in nature. Ian Plimer, a self-professed climate expert, lied, therefore supporting proven liars is very bad for one’s reputation!