Oooh look at you, all gussied up and pretending to be interested in science.

It's sooo cute!

After the climate 'debate' is over (win or lose) you can go back to your politics, noone will think any less of you.

Gorgeous.

I'm a bit slow, I just worked out how to give direct references to the graphs I was referring to. This first is a bar graph of the trends on temperature for two different satellite records over varying lengths of time, and one of them does show cooling for the last 10 years, but warming generally. http://climate4you.com/images/BarChartsForSattelliteTempTrends.gif.

The other is from three datasets of land-based records, and shows the last 10 years cooling, as well as the last 5. They all show warmings over longer periods. http://climate4you.com/images/BarChartsForSurfaceTempTrends.gif.

This last is a line graph of 100 years of data to which they have fitted a straight line and a polynomial. You can clearly see the decline on the HADCrut series since 1998, reflected in the polynomial. http://climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT3%20100yearTrendAnalysis.gif.

So by some measures Arjay is right and by others Eclipsed is too. Which doesn't justify the scorn that Eclipsed has been putting on RJ.

Hi Graham,

So you don't want to apologise?

However I'd like to make a few corrections:

You state - "I am politicising a debate that
ought to be mostly about facts..."

Kindly re-read my earlier post.
All I did was present facts as they were
available on the web. (To all who are
interested from the Sydney Institute's
own home-page). This was done in response
to Raw Mustard's initial post.

BTW: He called our PM (and a few others) using a
derogatory term - which lowered the
standard of this forum.

I thought that Eclipse
has presented his case for discussion rather well
giving appropriate links.

"Science is the pursuit of knowledge
and understanding of the natural and social world
following a systematic methodology based on evidence.
The key words being - systematic methodology, and
evidence." As defined by the British Academy of Science.

This is an emotive subject for many people - especially
for those who don't understand the science or the
evidence being presented.

Eclipse Now also criticises me for making no reference to peer reviewed studies.As Prof Tim Ball notes,we have people within this biased system peer reviewing each others work.IPCC" We have to hide the decline" "Temps have fallen and it is a travesty that we cannot explain it." Is this the communication of scientists with integrity who are seeking out the truth? It appears not.

Climate always changes,but the hub of the argument is the cause.Al Gore said the science was settled and Prof Ball rightfully said that the science is never settled.

I'm just so outraged that we have all be lied to and conned by what were once highly regarded esteemed paragons of truth and virtue ie the scientific method.It has been perverted.

BTW.Let's hope Graham that Tony Abbott rises to the occasion and becomes a leader we can all trust.

Lexi, you completely ignored the science. Perhaps it is not your bag. If so, say so. Here is what you said:

The link you've given us is from the Sydney Institute,
a privately funded - conservative think tank.
It receives support from the Australian Business Community.
The Executive Director is Gerard Henderson. His wife -
Anne Henderson - is Deputy Director. They aren't
climatologists so I'd be a tiny bit sceptical as to
"their truth." As you rightly said - "Nuff said!"

You draw a link between their political point of view and whether a view you assume they approve of is "truth". So you are making an ad hominem judgement. You are not looking at what is argued, but at who argues it.

You say they aren't climatologists, inferring that the opinion on their site is from an unqualified person, when it isn't, it is from someone who is well-respected in the climate science community.

You further infer that they are somehow making the statements - you use the possessive pronoun "their" to qualify "truth", suggesting that Salby is some sort of tool.

Not once do you refer to what he says or present one shred of evidence as to why it is wrong.

Then you have the front to suggest that I apologise for my comment above:

"And I also think the knee-jerk reaction by another poster above to try to dismiss Salby as being politically motivated because he spoke at the Sydney Institute is disgraceful. He is a professor of climatology and has written one of the text books on atmospheric physics."

Your comments bear out my criticism. I have nothing to apologise for.

Mr Young,

Enough said!