AGW proponents lose yet another debate down under

Would someone please tell me what science “the team speaking for the motion concentrating rather more on the science,” was the team concentrating on? As far as I know, the AGW folks only have pseudo-science to go on!

“Bogosity”__many possibilities! “Anthropogenic Global Bogosity”, “Catastrophic Global Bogosity”, the “bogosphere”, possibly even a Nobel Prize in Climate Bogosity! Wait__that’s already been awarded.

I do believe Ross’s comment was intended to be sarcasm.

Jimbo wrote: “They don’t even like sceptical comments because I have now been banned 10 times by the Guardian for pointing out inconvenient issues with AGW.”
Yup! I believe they respond to a small but determined little gang of readers who complain to the moderators. I suspect this because prior to the first time it happened someone warned me to lay low or they would make such a complaint, next time. I ignored him and was banned that day.
I wasn’t just banned from the PR firm owned DeSmogBlog after posting quotes from the owner’s book but IP banned from viewing the site, which now re-directs to Google. That wasn’t a big deal since they only average a handful of comments a day. It was amazing what they let me post though for a week or two prior, as in detailed fact checking, poster graphics, some autobiography, minor flame war self-defense, and psychological analysis. Just before the ban another user said they were currently “asleep at the wheel” after I artificially ended on a good note by complimenting the site for not moderating dissent. Now readers there will assume I went away happy, on my own.
That’s what John Cook’s site started doing too, though I haven’t been banned outright. They let a couple things through then effectively thread ban me after a moderator adds a snarky and condescending insult about my intelligence as I “cherry pick” and spew “denialist talking points”, so again the appearance is given that I surrendered the debate.
I haven’t gotten a comment in at Real Climate since Climategate weakened when they dropped their guard.
The fun outlook on this is how universal the story continues to be of how many skeptics were initially minted by their first hand experience on these very blogs.
The real reason I venture onto AGW enthusiast sites though isn’t to debate with the deeply converted but to understand better what drives them since it sure isn’t tree hugging, but a combination of authoritarianism and hive mindedness that I’m actively studying to try to figure out their vulnerabilities. Newly minted skeptic David Mamet, playwright, suggested the book “Instincts Of The Herd In Peace And War” and John Ray of greeniewatch.blogspot.com suggested the poem “My Last Duchess” by Browning. I love old books!
Tip: YouTube won’t filter links in comments if you strip the “http:/” and add a line feed between the “.” and the “com”. When the URL is then copy/pasted the line feed evaporates.
Celebration: Apple’s “Pages” iPhone app sure makes it easier to prepare a comment!

I think the mere fact that Ernst & Young have a climate change department tells you all you need to know – that there are going to be vast sums of money swilling around and lots of people siphoning lots of it off at various stages of the cycle.
So many people stand to make so much money, this scare (or bogosity, as it should now be known) may never die.

Beware, leftists (socialists) only value public debate and input when it agrees with their agenda. This will be marginalized and ignored, full steam ahead.

Say YES to an election in Australia. We need to put an end to this utter madness.

Don’t be fooled by the Chairman’s association with a finance journal, the Australian Financial Review is owned by Fairfax which is the propaganda arm of the Labor government here.

Well said, Tucci78. Two things are necessary for the AGW Theory: 1) Temperature must be increasing. If the data is uncorrupted and valid, seemingly a dubious proposition given the manipulation by Hansen, et. al., then the rise should be a straight line, or hyperbolic plot; and 2) there must be a direct correlation between CO2 levels and the global temperature. Looks to be a problem here………..CO2 is in a straight line rise (perhaps), but temps are not.
I used to build models as a child. The cars looked great, but were easily breakable. And none of them ever actually ran 200 mph.

An adult male respires less than one kilogram of CO2 per day.
Say 1000 grams CO2 divided by 44 grams per mole gives about 22 moles per day.
One mole of CO2 is 22.4 liters so thats 492 liters per day.
Times 365 days thats just under 180000 liters per year.
Exhaled breath is roughly 5 percent CO2 by volume, about 50000 ppm

At 8:33 PM on 5 June, F. Patrick Crowley had written:

Two things are necessary for the AGW Theory: 1) Temperature must be increasing. If the data is uncorrupted and valid, seemingly a dubious proposition given the manipulation by Hansen, et. al., then the rise should be a straight line, or hyperbolic plot; and 2) there must be a direct correlation between CO2 levels and the global temperature. Looks to be a problem here………..CO2 is in a straight line rise (perhaps), but temps are not.

For these reasons – and others – the AGW hypothesis does not even rise to the level of “theory.”
The order of scientific notions has been detailed as “conjecture, hypothesis, theory, and law.”
Drawing from Jeff Glassman’s article in The Crossfit Journal (December 2007):

1. A conjecture is an incomplete model, or an analogy to another domain. Here are some examples of candidates for the designation:
• “Ephedrine enhances fitness.”
• “The cosmological red shift is cause by light losing energy as it travels through space.” (This is the “tired light conjecture.”)
• “The laws of physics are constant in time and space throughout the universe.” (This one is known in geology as “uniformitarianism.”)
• “Species evolve to superior states.”
• “A carcinogen to one species will necessarily be carcinogenic to another.”
2. A hypothesis is a model based on all data in its specified domain, with no counterexample, and incorporating a novel prediction yet to be validated by facts. Candidates:
• “Mental aging can be delayed by applying the ‘use it or lose it’ dictum.”
• “The red shift of light is a Doppler shift.”
3. A theory is a hypothesis with at least one nontrivial validating datum. Candidates:
• Relativity.
• Big Bang cosmology.
• Evolution.
4. A law is a theory that has received validation in all possible ramifications, and to known levels of accuracy. Candidates:
• Newtonian mechanics.
• Gravity.
• Henry’s Law.
• The laws of thermodynamics.
Each of these candidates can stir arguments worthy of a paper, if not a book, and no model is secure in its position. Weak scientists will strengthen their beliefs and stances by promoting their models while demoting the competition. Some familiar models fail even to be ranked because they are beyond science, usually for want of facts. Candidates:
• Creation science or notions of “intelligent design.”
• Astrology.
• Parapsychology.
• UFO-ology.

With specific reference to AGW, Glassman continues:

Just as intelligent design is a threshold question between nonscience and conjectures, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a threshold question between conjectures and hypotheses. AGW is a centuries-old conjecture elevated to an established belief by a little clique of quacks who proclaim themselves the Consensus on Climate, guardians of the vault of exclusive knowledge. Does this sound familiar? Is the Consensus patterned after the Council of Trent? As a matter of science, as opposed to a matter of belief, the AGW conjecture is gathering more contradictory evidence than supporting. The layman can test it and understand its failings by applying just the few principles outlined here.
AGW fails the test because it is proclaimed by a consensus. Science places no value on such a vote. A unanimous opinion, much less a consensus, is insufficient. Science advances one scientist at a time, and we honor their names. It advances one model at a time. When the article gets around to saying “most scientists believe…,” it’s time to go back to the comics section. Science relies instead on models that make factual predictions that are or might be validated.
AGW fails on the first order scientific principles outlined here because it does not fit all the data. The consensus relies on models initialized after the start of the Industrial era, which then try to trace out a future climate. Science demands that a climate model reproduce the climate data first. These models don’t fit the first-, second-, or third-order events that characterize the history of Earth’s climate. They don’t reproduce the Ice Ages, the Glacial epochs, or even the rather recent Little Ice Age. The models don’t even have characteristics similar to these profound events, much less have the timing right. Since the start of the Industrial era, Earth has been warming in recovery from these three events. The consensus initializes its models to be in equilibrium, not warming.
And there’s much, much more.
Anthropogenic Global Warming is a crippled conjecture, doomed just by these principles of science never to advance to a hypothesis. Its fate would be sealed by a minimally scientifically literate public.

With all due deference, therefore, pains must be taken at all times never to use the phrase “AGW Theory,” and to employ the word “hypothesis” in discussions of this gaudy, ghodawful fraud only as a matter of courtesy.