As far I can can see as an open-minded (if devil’s advocate-playing) floating voter is where to find actual independent analysis

Huh? Are you really asserting that in all the tens of millions of person-hours that have gone into the analysis of climate change since (at least) the 1980s there isn’t a single piece of unbiased scientific assessment? Are you really suggesting that every single scientist who has ever considered this subject has had an axe to grind from day one?

As you know, we don’t ban on opinion except in the cases where people make offensive, unsupported, repetitive, and outright stupid comments. That is pretty much defined as trolling. It is subject to an evolution by over-reaction that we’re happy to provide. It improves the population commenting on net by restricting the idiots to talking to each other – eg the sewer.

I’ve never even considered banning you. Hell I don’t even leave big black notes on your comments unless you’re talking to me and I’m on one of those machines with limited javascript and therefore no reply functionality.

Always happy to help with my old science knowledge…

The MWP occurred between 1100 and 1300 when Europe
and the North Atlantic were relatively warm. The LIA followed between 1500 and 1900 when they were abnormally cold. Indeed, if we can believe historic records from Europe, which told of warm weather crops being grown far north of where they have not grown until recently. Indeed the MWP for Europe might have been as warm as the present. But was this warming and subsequent cooling global or even hemispheric at such large amplitude? Figure 3.2 shows a representative sample of proxy reproductions of Northern Hemisphere temperature (there are many others) as well as temperature inversions from boreholes (see OR). Although they differ in some details, they all agree that the MWP was not as warm as today.

and another:

Two recent studies (von Storch et al. 2004, 2006; Moberg et al. 2005) have been cited by critics as showing that the hockey stick is in error and so question the source of current warmth. In reality, if read carefully, both these two efforts actually give strong support the AGHG hypothesis. The first is a modeling study. In those papers von Storch et al. use a model from the Max Plank Institute, ECHO-G, to reconstruct temperatures over the past 1,000 years. The model result is subjected to differing amounts of numerical noise and a synthetic proxy temperature reconstruction is made for varying amounts of noise. The results show that, if subjected to the type and amount of noise as involved in the hockey stick proxies, the depth of the LIA is greatly reduced and agrees well with the hockey stick result when the actual answer is that the LIA was significantly cooler than Mann et al. said it was. The modeled coolness of the LIA agrees more closely with that of boreholes (see discussion in below).

and

While the models need continued improvement in these areas, comparison with observations of both present and paleo-climates suggests that a sensitivity to doubling CO2 is likely between 2 and 3C. Second, showing that no other forcing is able to
cause the observed warming. This is harder to do because as the adage says, ‘‘absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.” However, the role of the sun, so
important in earlier warmings and coolings, is far less effective in the past 25 years during the largest warming but no increases in solar activity. Thus, as IPCC (2007)
makes clear, we are now very certain that the observed warming especially in the last 25 years is due mostly to human emissions of GHGs.

and from the conclusion:

And so the period of debate over human effect on climate is over. There now will ensure a perhaps larger, more controversial debate about how society should respond. Here, science can assist, but these decisions involve other a more human side which is our view of ourselves and that or the rest of living things on the planet. The great challenge of the next decade then, is to come to robust agreements on how to reduce the human effect on the planet.

What are you talking about?

I suspect that one of your usual misinterpretations is about to show up. Something like expecting nice simple linear data. This isn’t physics with their nice simple models like blackbody radiation.

Climate is a a chaotic system with cyclic inputs that kind of simplicity doesn’t happen in. In particular if you’d care to consider the effects of insolation with a 11 year sunspot cycle perhaps? Or have you forgotten that greenhouse gases are a retentive system. If they don’t get the energy in because the sun is heading down the sunspot cycle, then the apparent temperatures will not increase. However if you look at temperatures at the same time in the sunspot cycle, there is a whole different (and increasing) story…

Please engage your brain…

Talking to climate change deniers is a lot like talking to creationists.

Excellent link.

That is right up there with this;
http://blog.kickin-the-darkness.com/2008/09/howto-talk-to-evolutionist-without.html

At least till I find some time to wield the cluebat.

Oh and BLiP, you responded to my question of rOb asking if he still stands by the hockey stick so I assume you are still following on faith rather than science as well ?

One more thing BliP, why did Gore fail to mention that the earth was warmer in medieval times than it is now? Was it an inconvenient truth to acknowledge that little issue ?

Secondly, as a climate change agnostic (as I admitted a few days back, I had to ditch maths in Year 10 because I’m virtually numerically dyslexic, thus stuff concerning numbers needs very careful reading which I simply don’t have time for at present) I find the “for Dummies” approach taken by Lynn and others very enlightening.

I see that Redlogix has already answered on what osmosis is. I was referring to the biological process – well at least I hope that politicians are biological.

Never did do geography past 5th form. Perhaps you should look up what is involved in earth science courses as you seem to be somewhat more vacant on that area than even your usual level of dimness.

Go for it. I seldom have much time to blog at present *sigh*. I think this is the first post I’ve had time for in the last few weeks.

The main reason I’m on here so much at present is because I wound up with time to put in and test mod_limitipconn. That will restrict the bloody search bots in how many tcp connections they open at once. Since this server went up I’ve had to throttle the number of possible connections down to virtually nothing to stop them blowing all of the RAM. That slowed the whole site big time. One of the stupid bots opened over 256 connections simultaneously when I was looking in the logs.

So at present I’m retuning the site to a more acceptable speed. Easiest way to be all over the site actively managing it. Does mean a few site unavailable when I restart it for the next round..

Nick Smith has been waving around a economic paper about the ETS targets that proves exactly the opposite to what he claims, as Keith Ng had fun pointing out.

Rodney Hide states that he hasn’t seen any conclusive proof of global warming and subsequently makes it clear that he’d need to see it happening (ie getting washed away) to prove it to him. In other words he is stying that there is no proof that would satisfy him before it is too late to do much about it. It is a pity that he doesn’t apply the same logic to Act’s economic policies – which appear to have not worked in the medium term anywhere.

At least Labour, the Greens, and the Maori party appear to have read more than their navels.