It has been reported in the Age over the last few days that a climate report, commissioned by organised climate skeptics (that was touted as free of human influence), has concluded the manmade climate change is even worse than first thought. The boffins commissioned to conduct the study now declaring themselves converted from skepticism.

When I have tried to present these new facts to the climate skeptics in my life, one responded by saying "well thats why we have religion !." I thought what on earth does she mean?, so I asked what do you mean ?, she said well the theory of evolution is not a proven theory. That's why people believe in God.

Another one said it can only be regarded true in science when one scientist proves everyone else wrong, not when everyone agrees.

Whilst I see the strange principals attached to these beliefs, I fail to see their relevance to the climate debate, when it is now apparent that the facts speak for themselves.The link is

http://www.theage.com.au/world/climate-change-sceptics-unwarmed-by-scientists-reassessment-of-cold-facts-20120730-23agk.html

After that, I read the Age survey asking the question "do the facts have a bearing on the way you feel about climate change", 44% of people said no. About then, I became quite fearful for our future.

The only time your global warming people will ever lie straight thinker, is after they have stopped breathing.

Muller's paper is so full of flaws & mistakes, accidental of contrived, that it appears it can not find a publisher in the scientific world. The fact that it had to be published by the greeny rag the Age does tell us something of it's value.

Anthony Watts new paper had all ready ripped the floor out from under Muller by proving that over half of the warming claimed by the warmists is due to faulty siting of gages & some totally unjustified "adjustments" to the raw data.

The global warming community are now going to have to justify their "corrections" or withdraw from the game. It will be interesting watching them, as they have always avoided trying to do the impossible, in the past.

Even many in the warmist community have complained of Muller rushing into the public arena, with a paper that has not been peer reviewed, or accepted for publication by the scientific press.

It does tend to indicate this is an application for funding, first & foremost.

Dear Hasbeen,

Good to see you buddy. I thought you had retired but you are back for more.

The nose is a touch out of shape still, but the bruises seem to have healed well.

Okay, who do you have for us now?

Ouch! Not Anthony Watts? Really? Heartland Institute favourite and Glenn Beck chum?

Me thinks you may still be a tad groggy.

You tout his paper which worked off data from 600 odd volunteers as ripping the floor out from Muller's paper.

Then you claim “Even many in the warmist community have complained of Muller rushing into the public arena, with a paper that has not been peer reviewed, or accepted for publication by the scientific press.”

But wait! What does Watt's release state about his own paper?

“This pre-publication draft paper, titled An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends, is co-authored by Anthony Watts of California, Evan Jones of New York, Stephen McIntyre of Toronto, Canada, and Dr. John R. Christy from the Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama, Huntsville, is to be submitted for publication. “

Oooh nasty.

You sure you want to do this? A man in your condition?

[Deleted for abuse.]

Hasbeen.

...Muller rushing into the public arena, with a paper that has not been peer reviewed....."

It seems Anthony Watts now thinks it's perfectly acceptable to wave about a paper in the public arena before peer review:

"The pre-release of this paper follows the practice By Dr Richard Muller of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project...."

Here's a review of Watt's paper:

http://variable-variability.blogspot.com.au/2012/07/blog-review-of-watts-et-al-2012.html

and Muller

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/berkeley-earthquake-called-off/

(Can't wait to see which journal accepts Watts' piece)

Yes I noticed the dams in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne nearly empty as Flannery predicted. Oh well pseudo science can't get it right all the time.