Shelley appears to be part of this generation but from her writing style and content, I suspect she is much older than she lets on.

Charles Melville

No wonder the warm-mongers are reluctant to debate: the previous major debate actually changed the minds of the audience (57.3% to 29.9% in favor of believing that Global Warming was a “crisis” to 46.2% to 42.2% in favor of skepticism) and we can’t have that!

Skeptical quotes from Novelist Michael Crichton:

“I would like to suggest a few symbolic actions that right—might really mean something. One of them, which is very simple, 99% of the American population doesn’t care, is ban private jets. Nobody needs to fly in them, ban them now. And, and in addition, [APPLAUSE] “Let’s have the NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), the Sierra Club and Greenpeace make it a rule that all of their members, cannot fly on private jets. They must get their houses off the [electrical] grid. They must live in the way that they’re telling everyone else to live. And if they won’t do that, why should we? And why should we take them seriously? [APPLAUSE]”

“I suddenly think about my friends, you know, getting on their private jets. And I think, well, you know, maybe they have the right idea. Maybe all that we have to do is mouth a few platitudes, show a good, expression of concern on our faces, buy a Prius, drive it around for a while and give it to the maid, attend a few fundraisers and you’re done. Because, actually, all anybody really wants to do is talk about it.”

“I mean, haven’t we actually raised temperatures so much that we, as stewards of the planet, have to act? These are the questions that friends of mine ask as they are getting on board their private jets to fly to their second and third homes. [LAUGHTER]”

“Everyday 30,000 people on this planet die of the diseases of poverty. There are, a third of the planet doesn’t have electricity. We have a billion people with no clean water. We have half a billion people going to bed hungry every night. Do we care about this? It seems that we don’t. It seems that we would rather look a hundred years into the future than pay attention to what’s going on now. I think that’s unacceptable. I think that’s really a disgrace.”

Skeptical quotes of University of London’s emeritus professor of biogeography Philip Stott:

“What we see in this is an enormous danger for politicians in terms of their hypocrisy. I’m not going to say anything about Al Gore and his house. [LAUGHTER] But it is a very serious point.”

“In the early 20th century, 95% of scientists believe in eugenics. [LAUGHTER] Science does not progress by consensus, it progresses by falsification and by what we call paradigm shifts.”

“The first Earth Day in America claimed the following, that because of global cooling, the population of America would have collapsed to 22 million by the year 2000. And of the average calorie intake of the average American would be wait for this, 2,400 calories, would good it were. [LAUGHTER] It’s nonsense and very dangerous. And what we have fundamentally forgotten is simple primary school science. Climate always changes.”

“And can I remind everybody that IPCC that we keep talking about, very honestly admits that we know very little about 80% of the factors behind climate change. Well let’s use an engineer; I don’t think I’d want to cross Brooklyn Bridge if it were built by an engineer who only understood 80% of the forces on that bridge. [LAUGHTER]”

Jonathan Sarfati, Brisbane

http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/Climate_L.pdf

http://www.climatescience.org.nz/

(reminder: I’m not saying AGW is not possible, or not happening … I’m reserving judgement, because the idea that “the science is settled” has been demonstrably falsified).

Stephen Frost

You have been provided with so many references, material, signposts, websites and other information that if you are genuinely and sincerely seeking an answer to the whole of the issue, you would retire to study this voluminous material and return after possibly say (6) months at minimum to address those queries consequent upon such studies and research. There is much for you to study and to digest in the meantime.

John McMahon
Burnett District, Qld

http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/pdf/10.1623/hysj.53.4.671?cookieSet=1

“On the credibility of climate models”
published in the Hydrological Sciences Journal
Abstract:

Geographically distributed predictions of future climate, obtained through climate models, are widely used in hydrology and many other disciplines, typically without assessing their reliability. Here we compare the output of various models to temperature and precipitation observations from eight stations with long (over 100 years) records from around the globe. The results show that models perform poorly, even at a climatic (30-year) scale. Thus local model projections cannot be credible, whereas a common argument that models can perform better at larger spatial scales is unsupported.

Stephen Frost, Melbourne

I keep coming back because I am hoping that someone will tell me what is wrong with the science.

I’ve done so … a couple of times now … did you have a look at the material at the links I posted, and if so, what is your objection to the proposition that most of GW is linked to solar output and is therefore not anthropogenic in nature? Have you made a study of how computer models are produced? If you have, you would discover that they only way a programmer can know whether his/her program is working properly (not bug-ridden) is if the output matches the pre-stated desired outcomes (i.e. the specification). Wonder what that specification said … oh yes, that’s right, something like “we need a computer model that shows us how much global warming is occurring and how much is caused by humans”. Computer models are (to me) of the same order as wish fulfillment. In other words, self-fulfilling prophecies.
– Stephen Frost, Melbourne