rstuart, my hears are burning.

In Graham’s comment yesterday http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9906#160953 he linked to his Ambit-Gambit blog post

http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/003405.html

In it he appears to ‘quote mine’ Professor Ann Henderson-Sellers from a Roger Pielke Snr blog site. Unfortunately, there seems to be a problem accessing the link in Graham’s (ambit gambit) post so it is impossible to validate, one way or another.

Nevertheless, in my reply to Graham, I linked to what Henderson-Sellers really thinks about global warming:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2399646.htm

in contrast to “quotes” lifted from the inimitable Roger Pielke Snr.

You tell me ... does Graham’s ambit gambit piece come across as misrepresenting what Professor Henderson-Sellers thinks?

Of course, all this brouhaha was based on the snippet of information provided by the “courtesy” of Jennifer Marohasy, and Graham’s questioning the veracity of climate models ...

“the only way General Circulation Models can produce catastrophic CO2-induced warming is to introduce positive forcings from other agents, such as water vapour. Without these forcings temperature increases are relatively benign. What most don't understand is that the values attributed to these forcings are largely imaginary.”

There's that water vapour again ... it really does look like Graham has never really had a good handle on it (I can imagine the difficulties he’s going to have with water vapour in the stratosphere).

And don't you wish "catastrophic CO2-induced warming" could be given a rest - it is a tad alarming after all.

Anyway, yet again Graham goes for the jugular – “diversion” this time.

And I apologise if this is frustrating, it is for me too :)

GrahamY: "deliberate destruction of data so as to avoid their legal obligations"
rstuart: "I don't know what you are referring to."

You didn't reply, but things have moved on. Two formal investigations have now handed in their findings.

If "destruction of data" referred to information they were asked to provide under FOI, then you might have a point. From http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/02/no-formal-charges-from-first-climate-e-mail-investigations.ars :

"The ICO has decided that ... not dealt with as they should have been"

So they have been naughty boys. But FOI requests aren't where the real game is being played, which is the science. The universities own formal investigation into how science was done came up with this conclusion (from the same source):

"After having examined the relevant e-mails, other e-mail provided by Mann, and interviewing Mann himself, the committee determined that there was no evidence that Mann destroyed, suppressed, or falsified data, or misused any confidential or privileged information obtained during peer review or from embargoed papers."

So the American side of the pond came through with flying colours. Now we have to wait and see what the Brits have to say.

Michael Mann has not been left off the hook, Google and see yourself.
Greenpeace UK have distanced themselves from the ICPP report
WWF have removed the melting glaciers from their website

Even India is distancing themselves from the UN IPCC report, and why?
Google, seems the chairman has other interests promoting a sexy novel.

The Greens Australia have a global governance E5 on their site. Google and also see the methane emissions from cattle and sheep? Lord Monckton wasn't incorrect this was an agenda on the original IPCC
draft climate treaty. To undermine developed industrialized countries
and that ain't to way to go, friends!

The UEA are under investigation too.

I have the feeling the rats are leaving the sinking ship BS Climate Change.

President Obama side stepped it during his Address to the Union at the Congress... even though laughter and smiles were seen by him and his VP and the chairwoman of the Congress when he stated .."I know there are people who do not believe in the Climate Change Science [laughter} whether it is right or wrong we must commit ourselves to
clean energy... to keep ahead of China and Europe ...nuclear, and off shore gas and oil exploration and employ people in the manufacture of
solar panels, to be leaders in clean energy.." Part of this is viewable via U Tube.

Pres.Obama and family are visiting Australia soon, maybe he will give
PM Rudd and Sen.Wong how to back out gracefully as he has, and this
global governance myth as promoted by Lord Monckton is no myth.

The media are beginning to swing their attention to the AGW myth.
About time!

Only in your tiny little minds, Bush Bunny and brethren.

Q&A up to his usual sloppy tendentious worst again I see. I've been too busy earning a living to spend time on this forum. He can smear by innuendo all he likes. Apparently if you get good information from Jennifer Marohasy or Roger Pielke Jnr it is somehow tainted. I seem to remember Q&A just a few weeks ago accusing me of ad hominem attacks! Should I respond with a charge of hypocrisy?

If he seriously wanted to know what Ann Henderson-Sellers said he could have googled it instead of just complaining that the link on my site is broken (it isn't, the site it links to appears to be down). But a quick google search using "anne henderson sellars what the lead authors really think" would have turned Anne's own piece up on "Environmental Research Letters". http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/opinion/35820. (It's second on the first page).

Does this now make it good information because the link isn't to Roger Pielke Jnr who apparently doubles as Mephistopheles in his spare time?

Q&A objects to me talking about "catastrophic" global warming. Well when people he cites with approval say "We should be exercising triage. We should be looking at the parts of the world that are already dead, they're just still walking around. And we just need to leave them alone, and maybe the Murray Darling Basin is one of those." I think that is just what we are talking about.

And if Q&A doesn't get that it is cloud formation that is at the heart of the debate about forcings then he doesn't understand the science, no matter how many times he claims to be a scientist.

rstuart I wouldn't put any faith in a university inquiry. A lot of the academic fraud that has flourished does so because Unis would rather just sweep it under the carpet. They're hardly a disinterested body given that their economic interests align almost exactly with the miscreants'.

I was wrong when I said Jones had destroyed data - it was emails he was destroying.

Graham you must be one-of-a-kind… being a working-sceptic.
Prof Andy Pitman made the finding that , if you’re a sceptic, you’re likely to have no day job and be on some cash-for-comment retainer

He actually announced his discover , twice, first on RadioNational news :
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/25/2800992.htm
“They have nothing else to do. They don't have day jobs so they can put all their efforts into misinforming and miscommunicating climate science”
And then he gave us a near --carbon-- copy "on the ABC Science Show [30 January 2010] :
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2805143.htm#transcript
“ the sceptics are so well funded, so well organised, have nothing else to do. They kind of don't have day jobs.”
Apparently it’s Ok to propose conspiracy theories ---as long as you only implicate sceptics.

And it’s just a hypothesis mind you, not proven like the theory of AGW, but I’d wager that had Pitman been from the opposite side , had his name been Plimer, and had he made such a claim about his opponents, he’d would not have been permitted to go unchallenged, on the ABC , once –let alone, twice.

Nor is it out of line for Q& A to denigrate sources of contrary opinion , no, it’s perfectly in line ( rote line). Only those who talk on the side of AGW could possibly be representatives of real science .And, anyone at odds must be insincere & must have ulterior motives.

Which must make the following little confession coming as it does from one of those “atmosphere scientist's ” --one of that elite, gifted group, qualified talk on climate matters --a bit of shock:
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can
speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical...The main basis of the claim that
man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely
upon climate models. We all know the frailty of models concerning the air-surface
system.” Dr. Joanne Simpson.

But not enough of a shock, I’ll wager, to dent a true believers zeal