Dear Ludwig,

Thanks for the flower sites.
Much appreciated. And,
Love your sense of humour, as always.

Dear Examinator,

Thank you for all your references.
You're a great teacher! :-)
I don't have a neutral address.
But, Thanks for the offer.

Dear Spindoc,

All I can do is send you a big
hug and also Thank You for your
kind words.
You're a gentleman!

Thanks Foxy

I’m so disgusted by the missing word syndrome and small but infuriating typos syndrome, which plague me to death on this forum, that I’m going to put up that post again, with corrections!

Dear mud-dwelling lotus blossom (growing in the OLO mud-puddle?)

Let's all hope that Mad Monk, ahh I mean, the Honourable Mr Tony Abbott, can prove to be such a luvly lotus.

To me as a botanist, he currently seems more like a horrible Cabomba than a beautiful Nelumbo.

Time will tell whether he bombs out or breaks through and blossoms.

Cheers

[Cabomba caroliniana (one of our worst invasive aquatic weeds): http://www.weeds.gov.au/publications/guidelines/wons/c-caroliniana.html
http://buyonline24.net/images/Cabomba%20aquatica.jpg ]

[Nelumbo nucifera - Lotus:
http://www.floraphoto.com.au/images/Nelumbo%20nucifera%203,%20Fogg%20Dam,%20NT%20-%20enhanced.jpg ]

Dear Ludwig,

Abbott is definitely not a beautiful Nelumbo (Lotus).
But I'm not sure that I'd give him that much
credit as to be a Cabomba either. He's not that
talented.

To me Abbott strikes me more like the American
tumbleweed. Goes which ever way the wind blows.

Anyway, Thank You so much for the beautiful Lotus.
It's made my evening!

“…more like the American tumbleweed. Goes which ever way the wind blows.”

Yes. I can’t disagree with that. ( :> )

Examinator, I realize you’re half way through studying GW and I accept you have a significant investment in this and have access to heaps of links to support your opinion.

You have always presented your case based upon for key pillars. These are “Scientific Consensus”, “Computer Modeling”, “Peer Reviewed Process” and “Data Integrity”.

These are no longer available to you; they are at best tainted and at worst non existent.

I have just posted on another thread, “Those who believe in the UN have every right to feel angry. For the believers, this will manifest as mitigation, ignore the facts, trivialize, increase the alarmism and crank up the vilification. This will happen because fundamentalism is based upon ideology and has nowhere else to go other than to hit rock bottom and start digging.”

When I likened you to “Emperor Nero, fiddling whilst Rome burned”, I was referring to your increase in supporting opinion links and desparate attempts to breathe life back into the AGW case. What has happened in the past two weeks is “reality”, not in the sense that one side or the other is seen to be right or wrong. What IS significant is that the process by which the conclusions have been promoted is “flawed”, perhaps fatally. Business as usual is no longer an option for any side of this debate.

This also corrupts the need for an ETS as an answer because we don’t understand the question. Many will say they “believe” they understand the question but belief in no longer good enough.

You must also stop invoking the expression “tipping point”. We now know this to be part of the UN’s Charter to invoke the “Precautionary Principle”. It’s an arbitrary, non-scientific and political threshold to invoke UN intervention. It has absolutely nothing to do with climatology.

We now have an all Australian “Precautionary Principle”. The MM

spindoc: You have always presented your case based upon for key pillars. These are “Scientific Consensus”, “Computer Modeling”, “Peer Reviewed Process” and “Data Integrity”. These are no longer available to you; they are at best tainted and at worst non existent.

On the contrary, all of them remain fairly solid today.

Scientific Consensus: The number of published climate scientists numbered is the 1000's. Around 5% disagree with AGW. The number working at the CRU is the 10's. Removal of those 10's from the 1000's has very little statistical effect on the consensus.

Computer Modeling: Computer Modeling is tainted?

Peer Reviewed Process: The emails were not peer reviewed. No one has shown the peer reviewed papers are wrong. If they are badly flawed it should not be hard to show it, as it turns out 95% of the raw data they were based is available publicly, ie can be downloaded form the CRU's web site. http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2009/12/climate-docs-lead-to-investigations-at-cru-penn-state.ars

Data Integrity: see above. 95% of the data used is available. The remaining 5% is apparently commercial in confidence or something equally odious from the peer review point of view, but overall it hardly matters.

The only thing that is going against climate science right now is the temperature has plateaued over the last 3 years or so. Unfortunately that isn't long enough to tell us if the models are wrong as they predict climate, not weather.