Paul tells me Curtin was even more responsible for the Bengali deaths than I thought. As people died, Curtin didn't lift a finger, according to Paul, by sending any wheat their way. Why are Labor leaders such bastards! :)

In fact, as usual, Paul is wrong. In 1943-44 Australia exported about 4million tons of wheat, of which 900,000 tons went to India.

mhaze, nice bit of Goebbelism on your part, "repeat the BIG lie often enough, and people will believe it", you do it all the time. Reading about the Bengal Famine of 1943, there is a specific statement that Australian wheat WAS NOT exported to Bengal. The deaths of a few million non-white Indian would not concern you, any more than it concerned the racists Churhill at the time.

SR, yes I said co2 caused the rise of 0.1c and you said IPCC said
it was 10 times that.
It is the 9 parts that is what the dispute is about.
It does seem that it is due to cloud variation caused by the Sun and
solar discharges by sunspots varying the entry of cosmic rays which
cause the 1000 year approx variable length cycle which has been known for centuries.
Face it, the settled science is changing.
The IPCC has no choice but to ignore it.
How could they possibly come out now and say;

"Errr we got it completely wrong !"

Think of the repercussions !

Dear Bazz,

When the guru of climate deniers Roy Spencer says they are talking out their arses then these two clowns with their Phds in Forestry really shouldn't be occupying your time. Leave that to hasbeens like Hasbeen.

"Needless to say, Nikolov and Zeller’s work has been heavily criticized by climate change alarmists and skeptics alike. Skeptical climate scientist Roy Spencer, who has a PhD in meteorology, argues that compression of the atmosphere can’t explain greenhouse heating, because Earth’s average surface temperature is determined not by air pressure, but by the rates at which energy is gained or lost by the surface.

Spencer argues that, if atmospheric pressure causes the lower troposphere (the lowest layer of the atmosphere) to be warmer than the upper troposphere, then the same should be true of the stratosphere, where the pressure at the bottom of the stratosphere is about 100 times larger than that at the top. Yet the bottom of the stratosphere is cooler than the top.

In a reply, Nikolov and Zeller fail to address Spencer’s stratosphere argument, but attempt to defend their work by claiming incorrectly that Spencer ignores the role of adiabatic processes and focuses instead on diabatic radiative processes. Adiabatic processes alter the temperature of a gaseous system without any exchange of heat energy with its surroundings."

http://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/https/wwwscienceunderattackcom/blog/2020/8/10/challenges-to-the-co2-global-warming-hypothesis-3-the-greenhouse-effect-doesnt-exist-58

Of course there will be arguments along the line you express.
However you cannot ignore the historical record of previous
warmings. This one is right on schedule.
The earths greening and agricultural well being are repeating the
Roman and Medieval cycles.
If the temperature stops rising in the next ten years it will be time
to look for a fall in temperature.
I won't be here to say I told you so unfortunately.

Thinkabit- In answer to your comments on the quote "the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness". The quote was from 1700's Polymath Laplace and paraphrased by Physicist Carl Sagan. There are philosophies of science including those by Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend that try to explain how science is or should be conducted. Popper talked about falsifiability. Sometimes in science there are apparent contradictions- like Newtons first law- prior scientists believed that force was required for motion. Kuhn talked about scientific agreement. Statistics is an interesting case in science- there are many cases of fraud. One of the principles of empirical science is that the experiment is repeatable. The quote I believe is meant to serve as a warning to those that would attempt to introduce a new theory that is inconsistent with the massive corpus surrounding. Your comments appear to relate to empirical as opposed to theoretical science- I'm not sure I'm really qualified to talk about the relationship between the two- but it seems to be between "the what" and "the why". Science in a sense isn't about finding "the truth"- but in finding a "better truth". Schoepenhauer talked about the four fold root of reason and the nature and danger of cross domain knowledge. Science can easily cross into scientism. Complex phenomena are less predictable than simpler- the three body problem is considered unsolvable. Population models track changes with growth rate, periodicity and chaos.

http://webserv.jcu.edu/math/Vignettes/population.htm