Qanda,
It is YOU who misrepresents.

The salient points being made by Simpson are:
1) She felt compelled whilst funded by, and or affiliated with, an organisation to tow its pro-AGW party line –something, you and others tell us never happens!
2) She has little faith in climatic modelling –quite at odds with your unshakable faith in such!

You’ve docked onto her statement YOUR little serial puff piece about “the weight of evidence (for AGW) [ being] robust.” & ”dangerous outcomes” .Totally against the spirit of what she was saying.

The only place Simpson comes close to your take, is her decision to err on the side of caution.
And such would normally be eminently sensible. Except that, equating caution with the program proposed by Gore/IPCC is an error.

Commitment to the Gore /IPCC program doesn’t just mean: “ lets clean -up our act, reduce pollution & waste & develop alternate energy sources”
( I don’t know of anyone who doesn’t think such is wise!)

It means, we sign off on contracts to bankroll the rest of the world for what ever amount, and for however long, the IPCC & its organs dictate.

And far from taking precautions to mitigate any threat , in accepting the program we accept liability for a 1001 problems in the rest of the world.
Most of which are not derived from climate change . Whilst all the time allowing the major causes of such problems: over population, poor farming ,over fishing practises , to name but a few, to go largely unaddressed .

Such is not a prudent stand – it is a foolhardy stand!

Want to see the IPCC future world ?
Witness your poster boy Bishop Tutu singing & doing his geriatric jig at Copenhagen: “We’ll all sink or swim together”
The only team sport he and his followers have in mind is to line up for their free handouts.

As for your comment: “I too am a sceptic” --sorry, I don’t buy it!

Jedimaster, your words, “not panic" really give you away, because you are not warning against the panic promoted on the basis of a “very likely” with no proof.

Why is this line pushed with no proof, instead of proceeding with investigation, until the science is clear?

It has been obvious to anyone following the debate for a few years, that dishonesty is endemic in the IPCC and its accomplices.

The UN wants legislation in place to force the purchase of “carbon credits”, a spurious method of creating a huge market to be constantly traded to the profit of the UN.

Huge funds would be put in the control of a proven master of corruption, as witness its self extrication from the Iraq Oil for Food swindle.

Observation of the Bali farce made it clear that the UN would say anything to back the fraud of global warming.

The Hadley scientists with their scurrilous tampering with data put this all beyond doubt.

Nothing could be more obvious than that Gore, the IPCC and the UN are barefaced liars, intent on profiting from a fraudulent scheme.

Long before the present examples, there were the lies about a consensus which never was, the “thousands of scientists” who were said to back the non science of the Summaries, despite scientists, who were the authors of the science, speaking up to say that the Summaries did not reflect the science.

The peer review farce, where co miscreants of the Hadley scientists reviewed each other.

Truthful articles are immediately removed from Wikipedia, and lies about consensus are still retained and protected. Sites like realclimate, run by Michael Mann of Hockey stick infamy, are constantly promoted by warmists or their gulls.

The lie incessantly pushed is that models are capable of predicting climate. There is no attempt even to appear honest.

Without the internet, the compliant, corrupt media would have facilitated this crime, but honest realists now have a real chance of succeeding, despite the odds at the beginning.

Personally I think the AGWers and the political agendas that support their ideology have been found MORE than wanting. With my experience
and studies over 10 years I have never found their argument stable.

First it was CO2 and Greenhouse gases, then AGW CO2 was causing ALL
global warming, then it went further to contributing to global climate
change. It was all a load of crap. With No scientific basis, even though Al Gore reckoned he had provided the punch line.

Now we learn and it isn't new by any chance going back to 2007 even early warnings for investors in Carbon Credit trading shares etc.

This is what is driving Climate change now. Those who see the debunking of the whole ideology connected to global warming, climate change and CO2 emissions from developed countries is falsified.

As 'Bar Humbug' suggested on Joanne Nova's blog (I've enhanced it a bit) The Climate Change money train was hurtling at 100 miles a hour
until it met a bump, and now is being derailed carriage by carriage!!"

We are conned, those that believed in AGW have been more conned, and all to support people who want ETS taxes to be endorsed so they can
get better dividends. The biggest scam ever...I feel sorry though
for those who genuinely believe measures suggested during the Copenhagen Summit although basically driven by political agendas
have also been conned. They should be FURIOUS. Sustainability is one
thing though that I support.

qanda, how can you say that the models are pretty good and getting better all the time? What is your test of that? We've had ten years of static temperature which none of the models predicted, or can account for. There's an interesting website where they test model hypotheses http://rankexploits.com/musings/. Last time I looked the models weren't doing too well. Don't tell me that because the models are more likely to agree now than they were that they are more robust. That is a function of group think, not robustness.

Where does Plimer claim high sensitivity to CO2? You don't have to show me where Monckton said it - it's in his peer-reviewed contribution to climate science.

It's a furphy to say that because humanity wasn't around when CO2 was higher that it is somehow different now. Are you seriously saying mankind couldn't have lived in those higher CO2 days?

Good to see you agree about the ice age. So, what are you doing about it? If one turned-up in the next 100 years we really would have a catastrophe. It ought to be consuming our every waking thoughts. As well as working out what to do about the next NEO that crashes into us. Better odds of that than catastrophic global warming.

Malcolm Turnbull who was the leader of the opposition in Australia and
was replaced by Tony Abbott. Stood up in the House of Reps and said
he believed in all the Al Gore nonsense, and would cross the floor
to support the ALP and chairman Rudd and Senator Wrong's case for
installing ETS taxes?

Well - I have heard from credible sources, that Mr Turnbull has heavily invested into Carbon Credit trading. No wonder he supports the ETS bills offered by the ALP. He risks losing dividends doesn't he if no ETS taxes are passed.

Let's get real. Does Malcolm Turnbull represent the majority of his
Wentworth constituents ideology? I doubt it unless they have also invested heavily in Carbon Credits trading?

I think Malcolm should cross the floor and keep walking out of Parliament House because he is not acting in the best interests of his
constituents and also by supporting the Fed Gov ETS taxes is concerned with his own financial interests and others, and not Australia or citizen's welfare should these ETS taxes be implemented.

Keep walking Malcolm out of Parliament House and take Mr Rudd, and
Senator Wong with you, they have spent millions of dollars of tax payers monies on this AGW debate and supported Climate Change organisations who are paid to support the IPCC report, and Greens.
All proven now with the help of Lord Monckton, Prof Plimer and many other honest scientists, that human activity or AGW does not influence
climate change and have the scientific data (not corrupted by the UN IPCC, UAE et al) to prove it.

God bless the skeptics. We would not have been skeptics unless we were faced with incorrect and fraudulently based scientific data that was underlined by political agendas and to fraudulent money gathering
organisations. That could eventually harm humanity not help it!

Bush Bunny;
You exaggerate.
>All proven now with the help of Lord Monckton, Prof Plimer and many
>other honest scientists, that human activity or AGW does not influence
>climate change and have the scientific data (not corrupted by the UN
>IPCC, UAE et al) to prove it.

That is not what Monkton said.
What he said was that temperature is rising and has been rising for 300 years.
He did say that man generated CO2 was causing an increase above the
long term rise, but that this rise was only about 1/5th of the IPCCs
rise and he presented the figures and reasoning behind his statement.
Actually he might have said 1/7th not 1/5th.
He said that this smaller figure meant that the effect of reducing CO2
emissions would have negligible effect on temperature.
Monkton claims that the real temperature is significantly below the
model projected temperatures.

I think Bush Bunny that is a fairer picture of what Monkton said.