Poirot, DeSmog blog, apart from being a "blog" which isn't good enough for Bugsy, is a front for a PR firm. It spends its time defaming people who it doesn't like and defending people who it does. It doesn't have a lot of credibility in this space, and the article you reference is 4 years old.

Michael Mann grafted the instrumental record onto the proxy record because the proxy record didn't show the increase in temperature he wanted. He noted the splice, but not the reason. Why didn't he note the reason? Because he wanted his graph to be more robust than it was. That is fraud. His graph is the Piltdown Man of climate science.

Bugsy, just off the top of my head the Vostok Ice Cores show exactly what I am saying. So some peer reviewed science for you. I should also point out that using multiple proxies doesn't necessarily give one a clearer picture of anything. It does however provide lots of room for statistical manipulation.

Graham, apart from the fact that I don't really know what you are referring to when you say "just off the top of my head the Vostok Ice Cores show exactly what I am saying", what do the Vostok Ice Cores say that you think you happen to agree with?

I must say, I admire the swiftness that you can entirely dismiss a synthesis of so much data, even more so that you think that it is so flimsy that has been published in Science no less. The editors of Science know nearly nothing about 'statistical manipulation' when compared to the climate skeptics eh?. I guess it's nowhere near up to the standards of Energy and Environment.

But there is one thing I agree with. Even that 'blog' site is nowhere near good enough when discussing actual science. The opinions and de novo analysis that appear in them should not be taken as gospel, as they are generally not created nor reviewed by scientists before being published. I think of them as more like news sites. However, they are good for highlighting research that most people would not otherwise see.

When discussing science, reference and discussion on the published papers should be the prime consideration, that way at least we are discussing the same data.

Good afternoon to you POIROT...

As you had so shrewdly bought me to account on this specific matter, (rather comprehensively too !), I'm still undecided I'm afraid ? While I 'dithered' about the whole Climate Change phenomenon per se. Whatever the truth of it is; what's the harm anyway, if we DO take the additional measures to safeguard our planet anyway, Poirot ?

For myself, I'm still not sure, I must confess. There's a growing body of thought, that perhaps we're not actually under such immediate threat that some would have us believe.

There again, there are many other emminent scientists saying 'hand on heart' the planet IS undergoing a deleterious climate change ? Then why not have a bet each way, if for no other reason then a bit of insurance ? We plan for the worst, if nothing happens, we so what ?

I don't have much faith in the Climate Commissioner. It's my understanding, his academic qualifications are not directly related to that of climate science ? Therefore, he's merely a voice for Labour politics. If I'm wrong, I'll apologise unreservedly.

Thank you POIROT, and take care.

I wonder if we are focusing on the right thing? It seems reasonable that the end of the last ice-age, and reversion of the mini ice-age, would have been brought about by volcanic and/or sunspot activity? And, most probably a combination of these, since there is no reason to suspect greenhouse being responsible - save from the atmospheric resultants of volcanic activity. Either that, or a shifting of Earth's magnetic field, allowing the solar wind to temporarily bombard Earth, causing temporary unusual heating - with melting of ice sheets and resultant reduction in radiation reflection, more heat retention, and so on? (Or meteor, Factor x, Hand of God?)

So, has science specifically identified those causes, and their relative contribution to the measured results (heating) during those two significant heating events, and compared this evidence with records of related activity over the last 200 years - namely volcanic, sunspot and magnetic field variation activity?

It appears that a shift in Earth's magnetic field is predicted, but its timing and potential extent and impacts not specified. Also, we do not seem to have specific information of predicted or projected variations in Earth's volcanic activity, or of any unusual expectations of sunspot activity beyond its normal cycle.

In the absence of a scientific comparison of relevant volcanic, sunspot and magnetic field activity operating during those two significant warming events, with the equivalent data relating to the last 200 years, we have uncertainty as to human activity's contribution to recent warming. More importantly, we have only limited capacity to project the influence of future human activity, compared with anticipated 'natural' system variations.

Will future CO2 have significant influence, or will volcanic, sunspot or magnetic field variations overshadow and make meaningless any efforts we might make to limit or reduce CO2 concentrations?

BTW: How's the U.S. going building its underground Ark, stock piling oil and foodstuffs, and compiling the 'lucky list', in anticipation of the inevitable - either massive warming, a new ice age, or the nuclear holocaust last-resort for reducing human population to sustainable limits?

Dear Saltpetre,

If I was you I would go with the shifting of Earth's magnetic field.

Thanks to everyone who's contributed. But as Bugsy notes, we probably can't go very far into the science of the graph or the studies involved.

In the end blog debates always boil down to an impasse.

Bugsy is right that blogs have their limitations. My take has always been that they are where the majority of lay people congregate and discuss these issues - and it's the general population that has the voting power to effect change.

But it all usually ends up in a bun fight, and suddenly I think I'm somehow over it. Time to leave it to the scientists.

Adieu for now.