Hasbeen

http://www.bom.gov.au/sat/SST/sst.shtml

If you have difficulty understanding BOM, perhaps you can contact them directly and ask. It sure beats the hell out of all the guff floating around the blogosphere.

Spindoc,
I think the point you refer to is more strategic than actual.

IMO it was always about Catastrophic Climate Change as a result of human interference.
I resisted the term AGW early in the debate preferring the above. Some accused me of trying to weasel out, I begrudgingly acceded to its usage. *7/08*

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7606#118570

IMO "AGW" is/was both a strategic and labelling poor choice. It misleads the public to believe that the problem is Anthropomorphic *Global Warming* and not the consequences of catastrophic climate changes. Due in majority (but not entirely) to man increasing to *excess* CO2. Thus forming * the smoking gun*(root cause ).
Science tells us that the GW will be uneven (patchy) and be based on averages, proxies etc.

Imprecise threats, complexity, averages, conceptual extrapolation, vested interests and people don't mix. They expect/demand decimal point predictable i.e. universal (local)immediately visible temp rise ! Logically, it was never going to work like that.

The mechanism by which this took place is/was complex,indicative and not decimal point accurate.

Like most complex theories it is still untamed around the edges.

This allowed the so called sceptics to conclude prove the *global universal heating* isn't happening viola! no problem.

Wheel out the narrow focused i.e. Geologists who proved it's all happened before.

.BUT...things have changed more people, uncharacteristic pollution (no prehistoric precursors, volcanoes/comets) Add a fanciful economic system underpinning the society and by any scientific deduction “Huston, we have a problem”. One that implicates business as usual.

This then raises the questions about the consequences of these 'real' symptoms.
Recently, I changed tack but not principal, arguing to ignore both sides' nonsense quibbling over hockey stick curves, proxies, starting points clouding the issue.
Instead focus on the consequences of the observable, provable factors, considering the basic science(physics).

See the retreating western Tibetan feeder glaciers water to 300million Chinese/Indian people.
Or the La Pas glaciers etc. satellite(s) data on the poles and water through out the world.

Clearly the (incomplete) AGW theory, imperfect as it is, does and gives us pointers.

examinator, I can't beleive you and Q&A are still playing with the science bit. The science is finnished with until and unless a new body replaces the IPCC.

For goodness sake, how long have you two been exchanging pro-AGW links?

You both need to move on.

Spindoc, you say:

"The science is finnished with until and unless a new body replaces the IPCC."

Precisely what part of the BOM link I provided to Hasbeen (in response to his assertion) don't you understand? ... nothing to do with the IPCC by the way.

Your comments are anti-science at best, anti-intellectual at worst.

Perhaps it's you that needs to catch up.

CopenHagen was a group of deceived politicians and evolutionist who in turn tried to pass on deceit. Why am I surprised? No wonder this 'settled science' has proven to be so fraudulent.

Q&A, obviously you have no understsnding of the subject, or you would not have given me a link which had no bearing on my complaint, or reason for their actions in "correcting" data.

Try reading it, before you push this rubbish again, please.