Actually a scientist formerly with the UNSW did develop some cutting-edge solar technology. But he was poached by California where he has put it into practice out in the deserts there.

VeryStormy:

>>We can all search web sites and spout off a lot of data. But very few people have the opportunity to examine the raw data and look at the real evidence. I have, but have you?<<

"The raw data"? There are terabytes of that, and each type (ice cores, tree rings, satellite measurements, terrestrial readings, historical records etc) has to be adjusted to make it compatible. That's why there are so many disciplines involved.

I don't doubt that you are more knowledgeable than most of us on this forum, but have you *really* worked on the raw data and done all the tweaking to make them work together? You must have worked very hard - it's taken years for hundreds of experts in the various disciplines to do it.

.... where it's been operational for at least 13 years. Spectacular when you fly across it!

I am not looking for an argument here, however:

In fact the entire AGW theory is based upon the 1998 paper named “Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations” published by Dr. Michael Mann, then at the University of Virginia, now a Penn State climatologist, and co-authors Bradley and Hughes. The paper used 12 bristlecone and foxtail pine tree ring data sets out of 252 available data sets, called the Yamal set after the location in Russia. The other 240 core samples, which did not support a global warming theory, were discarded.

I agree on multidimensional weighting (I do such analysis for a living), but I haven’t found any evidence of it occurring in the 1998 paper. It simply took those 12data sets as evidence.

When a team of eminent statisticians led by Edward Wegman, chair of the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, looked at the 98 paper they found:

• The report was "somewhat obscure and incomplete"
• Criticisms by others were found to be "valid and compelling."
• There was no evidence that Mann or any of the other authors had significant interactions with mainstream statisticians.
• Mann's assessments, that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium, was not supported by his analysis
• The original data has been reused in most of the "independent studies" so these "cannot really claim to be independent verifications."

This paper and the data used to create it is the only evidence that the Climate change lobby have ever produced.

Please, if you are going to attack me about this post, do so with supportable facts

There was one planned for the Pilbara (the company I work for was involved) but red-tape killed it off. I believe it's going to be built in South Australia now.

One was recently built in Spain - it looks amazing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PS20_solar_power_tower

And on the same theme:

If the Climate doomsayers are right, as the Earth's surface warms, we would expect the lower troposphere to also warm. But until 2005 measurements from satellites and balloons showed otherwise. In fact, it was cooling, not heating.

Bit hard to argue global warming, when the measurements showed the bloody troposphere cooling down.

In 2005 the climate scientists suddenly admitted that the satellite data was all wrong due to satellite “drift”.

And then they suddenly admitted that the balloon temperature sensors did not take account of the shielding for the sun.

A series of adjustments, and they proved that the troposphere WAS warming. Nice!!!

Now forgive me for being cynical here, but two things are obvious:
1. You cant trust this bunch of amateurs to measure the temperature of the Sunday roast in the kitchen oven. THEY WERE WRONG! If they were wrong about this, who says they are not wrong about a lot of other data?

2. Here is a classic example of research being manipulated to fit the theory, rather than the theory being derived from the research. If the satellite and balloon data HAD matched the global warming theory no one would have bothered checking its accuracy.

This is dangerous and bunkum science.

It would be madness to keep trying to commercially harness the power of the sun while it remains uneconomic. Australia does recycle water, most notably down the Murray, Murrumbidgee, Darling and other populated inland rivers.

Didn't she die 2 million years ago

Dude - your a geologist who passed his degree 18 months ago, whilst a freshly minted B.Sc is a nice thing, and congrats on that, it most definitely does not mean you can pronounce on the entire science around the issue of MMCC nor call yourself a "scientist".

The feedback loops, both positive and negative require people who have spent many years, both in higher degrees and post-doc, examining their magnitude and triggers.

I don't search the web and spout off a lot of data - not one single person on BE (myself included) has the necessary education and years of experience in this field to make those calls, so it is a complete was of time - is the reflectance caused by China's coal emissions cooling (or dimming) the climate more than the increase in CO2 is warming? Will the reduction in albedo be more significant than methane emissions from arctic tundra? Are sun spots a bigger driver than increased water vapour? and on and on.

Of course there will be real scientists who disagree with the concept of MMCC or have concerns over the contribution of the MM bit and they should rightly be allowed to take their arguments forward in the peer-reviewed fashion. However there appears to be very few of these and most of the "scientists" disagreeing with the IPCC are not trained, qualified and experienced in this field, but are merely amateurs posting on their blogs.

You say that "Of that 2000 a significant number are currently taking legal action to have their names removed as they did not actually endorse it." - do you know how many there are taking legal action?

If the scientists from the IPCC (and all the others around the world) are wrong, why do you think that is? If you as a graduate geologist can see that they have made errors from your examination of the raw data, why do you think that they have not seen these during the 20-30 years they have been working on this issue?

Based upon a 1998 paper? I was reading books on AGW in 1990 (Global warming: The Greenpeace Report).

Slaphead O'Toole:

>>Please, if you are going to attack me about this post, do so with supportable facts<<

Actually, I was replying to "VeryStormy", not you.

And I don't believe I was attacking you/him at all - I was wondering how anyone could, individually, collate "the data" that may be extant in the climate change issue. There's just so much of it and, despite what you say, much of it has to be adjusted for pretty obvious, and quite valid, reasons.

Let me clarify:

The original text of the IPCC's 1995 Second Assessment Report emphasized that no studies had found clear evidence that observed climate changes could be attributed to greenhouse gases or other manmade causes.
(this was later altered (without the authors' and reviewers' knowledge or approval) by Dr. Ben Santer and his colleagues to say "a discernable human influence" on Earth's climate – which the Report didn’t say…)

The IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report used the “Northern Hemisphere Temperatures During the Past Millennium: Inferences, Uncertainties, and Limitations” paper known as MBH98, to “prove” that the effects were manmade.

This IPCC report contained the now infamous (and discredited) hockey stick graph, which showed no Middle age warming period, and massive temperature growth past 1980.

I know of no scientific report prior to MBH98 which claimed to show man made effects upon global warming. Can you provide references?

I don’t think anyone has attacked me. I enjoy a spirited debate as much as anyone, however sometimes climate change debate descends into name calling – people shout “denialist” like it was David Irving. I didn’t want that to happen – so I ended my post with a plea to keep this above board.

To be honest I am on the fence on Climate Change.

What I am not on the fence about is the lack of robust and transparent scientific procedures that have been used so far in the argument for climate change.

I agree the data needs to be “adjusted” – I prefer to call it weighted. The problem is CRU “adjusted” it, then threw away the unadjusted data, meaning no one can check their accuracy. They have consistently refused to provide the data to anyone outside their close knit group of believers.

When the pro climate change group start being honest, transparent and robust with their scientific research I will start listening to them. Until then they sit in the bucket under the bench along with paranormal researches, UFOlogysts, ley-line proponents and a host of other people who manipulate evidence to suit their theory.

Since this is getting quite heated, a bit of fun...

Well they wont be putting her in jail then The latest ponzi scheme chap got some extreme time though didnt he?