Come off it, Hasbeen,

You, who frequents all the denier sites, wouldn't know a peer-reviewed paper if jumped up and bit you on the ....

Skeptical Science takes it's material from climate scientists, as in:

http://radioviceonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/knorr2009_co2_sequestration.pdf

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_record/mauna_loa_seas_adj_fossil_fuel_trend.html

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ef200914u

http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/6862/

...to take a tiny example of the papers that were referenced in the article to which I linked.

As I said, Graeme will find a lot of like minds here.

Well Poirot I'm glad that there are a few fellow sceptics here.

I can accept that mainstream science is confident anthropogenic climate change is occurring, and to be honest I agree to an extent. Mankind has made a lot of changes to the environment that are likely to impact climate. For example a recent paper proposes significant changes to rainfall patterns due to deforestation. I am simply maintaining scepticism around matters of extreme change through the agency of CO2.

I believe I have every right to develop my own opinion on the matter and I freely acknowledge I may turn out to be wrong. Doubt it though :) That said, I do not find fault with governments for taking action - it would be irresponsible of them not to. Although I do think we should be more prudent and I am of the opinion we should not have moved so quickly into the carbon tax.

As for 'denier' sites, well my own experience is that most are far more tolerant of different viewpoints than such as RealClimate and Deltoid and SKS. I far prefer the broader range of opinions and ideas on the denier sites although I agree that their science is usually pretty light. But some host quite in-depth and intriguing discussions rather than the closed minded and hyper critical approach of the 'warmist' sites. And after all, science hardly has a track record of total infallibility, nicht wahr?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/climate-chiefs-face-abbott-axe/story-e6frg6xf-1226612076744
The link challenges what I focused on,Abbott haveing the same target.
I can be forgiven for that.
He has every possible view on many things
Welcome to Graham M but in your own words, you are not well read on this subject.
Science, long ago,learned how to tell much about climate and its changes many more years ago than your quote.
Try researching results from ice coreing.
Explore the reading of growth rings in trees both living and dead, hundreds of years there.
A question, well two.
Can anyone claiming this is just an Australian political issue claim any understanding AT ALL of the issue?
Second do we, any of us, truly think the whole issue is bought about by deliberate lies from the worlds science, if so then why?

Hmmm... I don't think I said i wasn't well read - I have read an awful lot. What I do admit is that I am not a scientist and hence do not have an in-depth understanding. But that would be true of most of us for most issues, for example commenting on say Labor's economic policies without being either a qualified economist or having practical experience at developing economic policy for government.

That said, I have enough knowledge for me to have an opinion. Do I think science is deliberately misleading the world? Not in a conspiracy sense, no. But I think the major players are environmental advocates and have an axe to grind and thus we have a strong case of groupthink happening.

As for tree rings, ice cores and the like, the latest controversy surrounding the Marcott paper is a case in point. Trumpeted from the rooftops because it showed a major uptick in the modern period, thus echoing the Mannian 'hockey stick'. But how much trumpeting will we see now that Marcott has admitted that the later part of the record is not statistically robust? A couple of 'deniers' seem to have done a pretty good job of deconstructing that matter.

For all the cries of denialism and the scathing criticism of blogger science, I think we have to accept that the Net has made broadscale review of science possible. Sure many of the sceptical sites are full of crap and nut cases, but there is actually some decent evaluation and insightful investigation going on as well. And some quite notable successes.

I think I'll put my money in the 'science is not settled' camp, and further suggest Belly that your own reading is sorely lacking.

I'll try to get a moment to read your link though...

Graeme M,

Yes, it's interesting that the "skeptic" sites have taken up that Marcott quote, seemingly assuming that it debunks the veracity of the graph...(the show's over, folks)

The weight of the graph to my way of thinking, is that it highlights the incredible "rate" of warming in modern times. It's the rate that is of concern - and the unknown territory Earth's climate may be entering because of it.

One of OLO's chief "skeptics" mentioned on another thread that Marcott simply smoother out all the nasty warm bits over the 11,300 years...

Perhaps you'd like to read this response (from a climate scientist) to that:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/03/smearing-climate-data/

Where did you get the idea that scientists think "the science is settled"?

As the IPCC itself has said there has been no temperature increase for
17 years, it seems to prudent to put everything on hold and see what
happens.
One of the worries I have about the science community is that many
seem to have gone out on a limb and are committed so strongly and
publically that to reverse their belief would be traumatic.

I know, I know that's the way science is supposed to work but they are after all human.

We have plenty of things to do with the money in the meantime.