Bazz: "Even Tim O'Flannery now admits that it is down."

O'Flannery says the person who make this claim, Andrew Bolt, is being a charlatan. You can hear O'Flannery's response to Bolt here: http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2009/12/bst_20091203_0741.mp3 Given O'Flannery was Australian of the Year and is a professor at Macquarie University, I'll take his word on what his said over Bolts. Truth be known, I'd take just about anybodies word over Bolt's, so that isn't saying much.

Bazz: "but there can't be much more to producing simple graphs of temperature."

If you really believe that, I suggest you look up the "Heat Island Effect". But I think the odds are you are well aware the Heat Island Effect and other measurement anomalies have to be accounted for. Thus you are reducing the level of debate to where Bolt operates at. Bolt dropped below gutter level some time ago, and is now mixing with the sewage.

Bazz: "Rubbish they were involved in selection of papers for the IPCC publications."

Sadly, this is unsubstantiated rubbish from you Bazz. Papers for the IPCC were not "selected". The IPCC tries to summarise the views presented in all peer reviewed papers. There are stuff all peer reviewed papers that disagree with the AGW hypothesis, so naturally that view isn't presented.

This isn't because of some conspiracy at the CRU. It could not be. There are but a handful of climate scientists at the CRU whereas the number of published climate scientists number in the 1000's. If a handful of scientists tried to miss represent the views of so many, all hell would break loose. In fact, it appears the reverse had happened. The climate scientists have lined up behind the IPCC report almost to the man.

Bazz: "no wonder that people like me who were fence sitters"

Odd. You never gave me the impression of being a fence sitter.

RStuart,baz and others,
In my last post I gave sites that are authoritative about both the *excess* CO2 and the real effect on the efficacy of AGW science conclusions.
The quickest is http://www.realclimate.org/.

One of the *recipients* of one of "those emails" makes some telling points on a BB4...in that none of the people asked to actually altered anything.

Jones' 'alleged' misconduct is cherry picking, out of context and can't be shown to have altered anything.

"It is more than coincidental that the 'hacked' emails happened now, weeks out from Copenhagen".

Almost all the data 'allegedly' potentially affected by these information were available from other sources anyway. *This has been confirmed by a number of sources*.

Of more importance here, is the dubious over exaggeration of the Shadow minister for GW assertions on Lateline last night. He based his assertion on his 20 year old thesis. What he hasn't acknowledged is that the amount of existing 'green carbon' (by his definition) needed, will have been immeasurably increased. Given that deforestation, population etc. has and continues to increase well beyond the figures in his thesis.

If, as the denialist's maintain, the current science is unreliable, then logically, 20 yo science and figures would be even more so, given the advancement in scientific measurement and methodology over those 2 decades.

Simply put, his basis for his assertion is *well out of date and inaccurate for today*, therefore, *relatively speaking* irrelevant.

The argument for 100% renewals for power generation alone,from the UK perspective, has got issues see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8388669.stm.

One can assume that the Aust Opposition's shadow minister will need to address the same issues and then some. Neither does he understand that his solution is exceedingly long term....in the meantime? we suffer on regardless as the book 'Hot,Flat and Crowded' points out.

Gawd, you did get stirred up.
You said;
Truth be known, I'd take just about anybodies word over Bolt's, so
that isn't saying much.

Well I saw the interview and frankly Flannery was putting a bit of
spin on his comment in the Fran Kelly interview.
I went to the ABC and read the text. It was like I remembered it.
So he did say
Quote; sure for the last few years we have gone through a slight
cooling trend unquote.

Now you have joined the "Abusers of sceptics" bandwagon.
It is all very sad really, especially since it all won't matter a fig.
The IPCC model thinks that fossil fuels will continue being burnt
at the business as usual increasing rate till lord knows when.

Oil depletion would change everything if it was a realistic input
to the ipcc's model.
AS I have said before you are worrying about the wrong problem.

Dear Examinator,

Thanks for the book reference by
Thomas Friedman, "Hot, Flat and Crowded."
I've read a couple of reviews on it.
Sounds interesting, so I've reserved a copy
at my local library. It's currently out on
loan until 9th Dec. (which is another good
sign).

Baz and others

Me stirred up nah, I do get frustrated with people who go off topic to avoid the question. The original question was about the integrity of MM and the Liberal party, yet all the so called 'sceptics' insist on obfuscation.

The question is clear.

ETS asside, MM's history doesn't gel with what he wants us to believe now.

What does the Liberals really stand for now? How does that gel with what they have done in the past?

How else can we assess them ? Are we in for hidden agendas, like core and non core promises etc?

They seem to be saying, we're here for opposition's sake and we'll change our integrity in accordance with that principal.

They intent on negativity, rather than showing the government up with better ideas and therefore demonstrating that they are a better government in waiting. All this proves is they are just the lessor of two evils...whoopee...a second rate government in waiting.

What's their pay off then? Lower expectations? Soften us up for their turn of trough wallowing?

Just because Labor does it doesn't make it correct. A pox on Labor for that attitude too.

Given the Liberals unholy trinity's past behaviour, why should we believe them now?.

Spin it all they want, if it swims in fresh water, looks like a fish and has teeth that doesn't mean its a dolphin...or does it ensure it isn't a piranha.

If they want us to swim with them in their river, I'm damn sure I want to know, which they are.

It seems to me no Liberal or "climate sceptic" wants to have that examined.

Deniers, I can understand, they'll support anything that agrees with their fixed position, regardless of contrary evidence, which is a definition of prejudices.

I say to all sceptics, if you don't want to be labelled a denier, then debate the topic not peripheral issues that indicate you're really a denier. You can't find something without looking for it. Sceptics look for truth not avoid it.

Bazz: "Gawd, you did get stirred up."

Yeah, but didn't stop me from looking to see if I could get something a little clearer than that O'Flannery / Bolt fight card. I came across this: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html

That link agrees with you and Bolt. It says warming has plateaued for now, and the models didn't predict it. I apologise. It gives several plausible explanations for why the weather might not be following the models, but I don't have a clue whether they are realistic. The main thrust of them seems to be "its the weather stupid - it does unpredictable things".

I took other things from the article. Right now the scientists haven't given up on the current models, preferring other explanations. But it is clear some are slightly uncomfortable. They put limits on how long this can go on. If things haven't changed by 2020, its all over. I imagine you will start to see movement in published peer reviewed papers well before then. In other words, the scientific process is working as it should.

This confirms my confidence in the scientific process to produce the best prediction of what will happen to the climate in the future. It isn't perfect, it may end up being wrong, but it is the best we have. If it is wrong, we will know as soon as they do. However, your attitude to the CRU leak makes it sounds like you believe all climate science on the planet is hopelessly compromised. To put it bluntly, this is absurd. A fairly balanced write up of the implications of the leak appears here: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/12/climate-docs-lead-to-investigations-at-cru-penn-state.ars

Regarding peak oil. What is good AGW for it is good it, as a carbon tax of some sort will accelerate a move away from oil. It will also help pay for things like upgrading of our rail system. So even if AGW is wrong, is isn't bad. Unlike you I don't think arrival of peak oil won't stop AGW, unless it brings down our civilisation. Instead coal consumption will go up to compensate. There is no shortage of coal.