Dear o dear!
To all the bonehead denialists: I'm flaming!--to myself. But I want you to know that I'm embarrassed myself by the invective that comes to mind; I'm "licking the chops of my own malice"!--to quote someone who might characteristically be taking your side. You conjure images of fattened locusts after a plague. One says laconically to the other, "It wasn't anythin' I done, mate".
...Nah, she'll be right!

Leo Lane, you keep doing it, don't you?

"There has been no warming since 1998, and there has been cooling since 2001. CO2 has increased throughout the period, while temperature has declined." Followed by:

"There have been frantic efforts to hide the decline, and both Hadley and NOOA present the information on temperature in a misleading way, differently to the way it was presented by them during the warming years up to 1998."

Oh please! Have a look at 2005. Besides, we all know you think global warming means increased temperatures every year. I'll go further, what's your definition of warming, or cooling?

You still don't get it, you never will ... why the Qld Supreme Court Appeals Judge in the Xstrata case called Bob Carter's claim that global warming ended in 1998 um, er ... crap.

So, you think "hide the decline" refers to temperature? If you do then you obviously don't know what you are talking about, or you are playing games - my guess, both.

LATO: The mini ice age - Hi. From what I remember from Uni. The Earth is an ice planet, most of the last 2.5 years. However, it does fluctuate from full glacial, mini ice-ages and interstadials. (warm periods like we are experiencing now) One common thing (if I can call
it that is that?) is that before an ice age or mini, temps do warm up
and there have been times when temps have been warmer than today.

From what I learned of the last time the Northern Hemisphere for some
reason I can't remember is harder hit than the Southern Hemisphere.
The last time it was cold in the 14th Century. Wine making was badly
hit, in UK and in Europe it stopped. But they used the wine presses to convert into printing presses improving communications via books etc.

Fresh water from the Artic settles over sea water, and it diverted
the gulf stream so those countries and continents that are prevented
from freezing does effect the ability to grow foods, particularly grapes. I believe the gulf stream has been effected now... 15 continuously cold winter susually heralds a cooling period. And scientists know this...or they should. CO2 emissions do not have much to do with it. But humans must adapt and I feel causing hysteria and AGW falsified data is not the way to take appropriate action. The Australian comment on Monckton is just saying he tells it like he sees it. That's his persona, I do not object to it, just as Al Gore had his style and if you watch his DVD towards the end, he blames CO2 for heralding in a new ice age. I wonder why?

Q&A, your remark about Carter and the Xstrata case is delusional.

After dealing with the fact that the IPCC Fourth Summary misrepresented the science, the Judge pointed out that an important critique of the Stern Report by Robert Carter had not been brought to his attention, although relevant to the hearing.

Carter did an excellent job of showing that the Stern Report, relied upon by Professor Ian Lowe in this action, was false and baseless.

During the hearing, Professor Ian Lowe admitted, in the witness box, that his evidence was exaggerated by a factor of 15 times. I think that categorises him as a liar, although the Court was too polite to use this term to describe him, in his shabby presentation.

The case makes good reading for those interested in the mendacity of the IPCC, Ian Lowe and Stern, of Stern Report infamy.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QLRT/2007/33.html

How does your false statement about Robert Carter categorise you, Q&A?

I acknowledge that some of your post was true, but only where you quoted me verbatim.

What amazes me, is that the Hadley emails were necessary to demonstrate the dishonesty of the warmists. It has been obvious for a long time, certainly since the fraudulent Gore first presented his dishonest film.

Leo, I think that both you and Q&A are wrong. He is referring to the appeal against the Land and Resources Tribunal decision that you reference, not the decision itself. The appeal was to the Supreme Court. The appeal is at http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/qld/QCA/2007/338.html?query=title%28xstrata%29

I remembered the case, and the odd thing was that the tribunal brought the Carter paper in after the case had been heard and had not taken submissions on it. The major ground on which the appeal was upheld was that this was a denial of natural justice. The matter was sent back to the Tribunal for rehearing. Interestingly one of our authors Stephen Keim SC appeared for the Queensland Conservation Council.

As far as I can see, and I've only skimmed it, as well as doing a word search on "Carter", there is no discussion of the accuracy of Carter's paper, and no finding, to quote Q&A's elegant phrase, that it was "crap". That doesn't surprise me as appeals courts don't normally re-examine the evidence.

In which case, the only judgement on Carter is the Tribunal President's comments, where he significantly accepts Carter's argument. He also picks up an error in Lowe's evidence where the figure that he gives is out by 1500%.

I was waiting for Q&A to come back, but he appears to have disappeared. Perhaps he can point me to something that I've missed in the appeal judgement, or retract his statement.

Graham, I acknowledge that I referred to the initial case, and Q&A referred to the Appeal. I was wrong as to a reference, while Q&A was wrong in the sense that he did not know what he was talking about.

It does not change the substance of my reply. The Appeal Court found that the Applicant had not been given the opportunity to make submissions in respect of Carter’s paper, and referred the matter back for rehearing.

At no point was there any criticism of Carter’s paper, in either Court. The lower Court obviously considered it an effective criticism of Stern's flawed effort.

Queensland legislation was passed which put an end to the case, which was interfering with Xstrata’s development of a coal mine, on the spurious ground that it would cause global warming.

As we all know, but the warmists will not admit, there is no scientific evidence that human activity contributes in any significant way to global warming. Running their line in a Court case is a waste of time and resources, so the Government was sensible to legislate as it did.