Lexi,

<<Trolling is typically unleashing cynical and
sarcastic remarks on another poster,>>

Nope, but since you did not follow the definitions offered by James Delingpole, you made up you own instead, perfect. That makes you a No7 troll.

“I didn’t read what you said but here’s what I think” troll.

“He doesn’t read your piece. He doesn’t need to: he knows what he thinks already and what he knows is, he hates everything you stand for and you’re wrong and he’s going to say so, every column you write, regardless of the fact that the paucity of recommends he gets prove him to be a total Billy No Mates”.

I can do my own assessments now so you don’t actually need to keep jumping into the box provided.

Ammonite,

"Many are claiming that scientists have concocted the entire claim out of greed. I agree it is about money - about who stands to lose the most and in this case it is the mining industry, the energy industry and the mess of smaller entities that either supports or is supported by these above mentioned industries."

You don't reckon that there is much money in taxes?

"A world wide conspiracy of scientists is about as believable as a herd of cats. Scientists by the nature of their talents are the most questioning and independent of creatures."

A desire to get funding or have a job or a desire to fit in with peers are not something that scientists are immune from. These things would not be properly described as conspiracy.

Lets say that I was a traffic engineer with wonderful qualifications and experience in the area of driving speed and safety who had run a very small pilot study that indicated speed cameras are useless. Will I get funding and will it advance my career in the area if I ask the State Transport authority for funding a big study to confirm my findings(assuming I'm not in NSW)?

Are you aware that the first time Crassulacean acid metabolism was discovered it was ignored because it was believed that it might conflict with theories of photosynthesis? In reality there was nothing to fear as different plants approach the issue differently. It later got rediscovered and accepted.

Anyway there certainly isn't total uniformity of scientists on this issue. Almost all that I have seen speak up are arguing against Climate Change and imagine the pressure on those working in places like the Research Institute for Climate Change and Sustainability or in a country where the government has publically committed to a carbon tax and has a Climate Change department federally.

Dear mjpb,

I'd like to clarify something for you.

You state in response to the earlier
comment made about me - "you're
politicising a debate that ought to be mostly
about facts." And you tell me that, "It does
have that appearance."

Well the facts are as follows:

This debate on climate change has been politicised
for quite a few years. As the ABC 4 Corners Report
on February 13, 2006, pointed out where Kevin
Hennessy, co-ordinator of CSIRO's Climate Impact Group
spoke to Janine Cohen and Tor Hundloe - in his book,
"From Buddha to Bono: Seeking Sustainability," both
confirmed that - "In Australia in 2006, leading
climatologists with that country's pre-eminent public
research organisation, CSIRO, were forbidden by the
organisation's management from publicly discussing the
implications of climate change. Management was acting on
behalf of the government. And Australia is one of the
standout countrties in terms of human development status.
It is not corrupt. Its science is world class. None of this
mattered. In 2006, the Australian Government's position was
to cast doubt on global warming and refuse to enter into
UN agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol.

With the release of the Stern Report on climate change, the
Australian Government's position had changed - yet the Prime
Minister remained half-hearted about a commitment to counter
global warming."

"New ideas, instead of being welcomed for the opportunities
they opened up for the improvement of the human lot, were
threats to those who had become comfortable in their ideologies."

The overwhelming evidence that CSIRO, the body assigned to
"independently" research and inform government on climate
change and its impact for government decisions, policies, and
strategy was gagged in speaking independently.

If we're presenting facts - it should be all the facts - and not
simply just a select few - especially in a debate that has been
politicised from the very start.

Dear spindoc,

The definition of trolling is available on the web.
As is the definition of trolls. You should read it.

Arjay,
You are intentionally damning one of modern civilisation's most interesting scientific enterprises because of a few choice words plucked out of context from a few emails. Do you even know what was being discussed? Let's try another question: did you even READ the entire EMAILS?

"Hide the decline" of what? What "nature trick"? "Temps have fallen and it is a travesty that we cannot explain it." — are you sure you even got that quote correct? What a flippant post. You are showing a complete lack of integrity. This SCREAMS a warning to all readers: "Aray posting — handle with care!"

For anyone who wants to understand what was actually being discussed here is a RADICAL new analytical technique we'll use just this once. It's called 'Actually bothering to read the email in question'. We'll summon all the powers of a Year 8 English student and try to comprehend the context of the words in the email, and the email in the context of a scientific discussion.

<<"Temps have fallen and it is a travesty that we cannot explain it.">>
I'm sorry, but even using my weak humanities background I can look up the so called climategate emails and show you that this sentence ACTUALLY reads...

<<The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't>>.

This is addressed in this next video (which I know you won't watch, but that doesn't matter because other people with half a brain and an ounce of integrity might).

An essential 18 minutes =
Part 1: "Nature trick" and "hide the decline" — with a special guest star from Beavis and Butthead;
"We don't need TV to entert-ain us". "Hehehehehe, he said anus!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70SlEqX7oY

Part 2: Threatening emails and a conspiracy to stop a sceptical paper being published?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJFZ88EH6i4

Non-essential
Part 3: Death threats to climatologists.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WvasALL-hw

More on "climategate"

In summary:
* The "decline" does not refer to a "decline in global temperature" as often claimed. It actually refers to a decline in tree growth at certain high-latitude locations. This decline began in the 1960s when tree-ring proxies diverged from the temperature record.
* "Mike's Nature trick" has nothing to do with "hide the decline". "Mike's trick" refers to a technique by Michael Mann to plot instrumental temperature data on the same graph as reconstructed data over the past millennium.
* The divergence of tree-ring proxies from temperatures after 1960 is openly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature and the last two IPCC assessment reports.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline-advanced.htm

"lack of warming - travesty"
Trenberth's views are clarified in the paper "An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global energy". We know the planet is continually heating due to increasing carbon dioxide but that surface temperature sometimes have short term cooling periods. This is due to internal variability and Trenberth was lamenting that our observation systems can't comprehensively track all the energy flow through the climate system.
http://skepticalscience.com/Kevin-Trenberth-travesty-cant-account-for-the-lack-of-warming.htm

The Economist — "But to take this as evidence that Dr Trenberth questions global warming seems foolish."
http://www.economist.com/node/14960149

“Climate scientists have to accept that they are in a street fight. They should expect a few low blows.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v468/n7322/full/468345a.html

The Science Show podcast. "Do they question our understanding of climate? Fred Pearce investigated for New Scientist magazine."
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2009/2758445.htm

Summary of ABC stories: hundreds of links
http://www.abc.net.au/contact/s2775954.htm