Why would you bother to post here if the best you can do is spout rubbish? The mind of a denier is a curious thing...

I note the ad hominum attack and absolutely no development of argument, about what I have come to expect

In fact John, a 1981 temperature prediction was dug up recently and shown to be incorrect. Turns out they UNDERestimated how much temperature would change. Fancy that.

Absolute and total rubbish not even a parallel to religious belief. I have seen detailed data from credible sources which can be cited this is readily available and even previous and current warmists freely admit earlier alarmists grossly exaggerated the rate and level of warming. The Q and A session on ABC referred to the alleged accuracy of 1990 IPCC claims which were asserted to be accurate when in fact data clearly shows this not to be so. Perhaps you would like to quote your own sources?

Here's a link to the PDF.
https://atmos.washington.edu/2003Q4/211/articles_optional/Hansen81_CO2_Impact.pdf

In your dreams John, having argued with plenty of religious cranks I can assert their common denominator is denial of reality. Something you exhibit in spades.

Even if we pretend for a minute that you are right in this one instance about the IPCC, you are talking about predictions made using datasets over 20 years old. Is that the best defence you can muster?

All recent models based on more accurate and recent data sets strongly point to faster changes then first predicted, not less.

Here are some links to what Prof. Roger Pielke Snr and Dr John Christy have to say about Hansen 1981 projections. If you consider reality it seems there are some serious problems with Hansen's forecast.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/john-christys-comment-on-if-you-want-to-roll-the-climate-dice-you-should-know-the-odds/

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/cherrypicking-a-comment-on-the-atlantic-article-now-this-is-interesting-a-climate-prediction-from-1981-by-james-fallows/

That is not the point at issue, as I think you know because no one could be that stupid. The point was that it was claimed that the IPCC predictions of 1990 have proved correct. We both know that is not true. If not you can produce their predictions and then produce reality rather than me wasting my time knowing that you will deny the truth. I note that you refer to a prediction made ten years before that, obviously the IPCC chose to ignore such prediction, so answer the question if you can! A closely related issue is that the ABC put to air data which is demonstrably false with it now publish a correction

Considering the forecast was made back in 1981, it's understandable that errors can be found after 30 years of hindsight and additional data. Even so, the conclusion (in the first link) makes for interesting reading:
“To conclude, a projection from 1981 for rising temperatures in a major science journal, at a time that the temperature rise was not yet obvious in the observations, has been found to agree well with the observations since then, underestimating the observed trend by about 30%... It is also a nice example of a statement based on theory that could be falsified and up to now has withstood the test. The "global warming hypothesis" has been developed according to the principles of sound science."

Henson was accused of exaggeration and scaremongering, later evidence suggests that if anything, he was being extremely conservative.

Of course it is a relevant point, changes occurring at a greater rate than first predicted should be a concern for anybody with an eye on the future and some respect for science.

That is precisely my point, changes have occurred at a much lower rate than predicted not higher! We have wasted billions of dollars on desalination plants which may never be turned on. I remember a study in the sixties which looked at predictions, initially thinking how many were accurate, this is in all fields politics etc. but when it was calculated how many were made more should have been accurate just by the weight of averages. I have no doubt that someone somewhere made a lucky guess but the two issues remain why was if falsely asserted the IPCC had got it right when it was way off and why will Anna Rose not debate her enemies in open forum. I would be delighted to take on people whose opinions I loath if given the chance because I know I could best them, you do not run away from a fight you expect to win. John Quiggin calls Christopher Monkton a charlatan but refuses to meet him in open debate. Tells me something

Blair, it's a no win situation with this guy. He rejects the science in favour of his 'credible sources'.

Please...get a new 'expert'. Christy is a shill for fossil fuel interests.

'Enemies' are they John. Interesting how you think about the issue...

And Christopher Monkton IS a charlatan so what's the problem calling him one?

You might want to check out climate crocks - Monkton chickened out of that debate. As greenman says:

"Faced with real, checkable, online debate, where he would have to name his sources, put it in writing, and provide links for readers to fact check him (hmmm..sort of the way I do it in this video series) His CowardlyLion-ness decided to, well, run."

The 1981 paper is indeed a good attempt, the projections for surface temperature are better than his later efforts in 1988. Bear in mind that surface temperatures are only one measure of climate change. taking into account Pielke Snr and Christie's critiques it seems the projections are of academic use only. To be used as a stepping stone to the eventual development of climate models that might actually have some use in the real world.

Once again I will try not to use too longer words. Did Annita refuse to debate with a US skeptic or not? Was it correct or false to say that the 1991 IPCC predictions were correct or not. If enough people attempt to foretell the future someone will eventually get it right but then again if you back every horse in the race you will pick the winner.

Well is it not strange that this did not occur at the Press Club address nor at the lectures notably at Brisbane where even the Courier Mail had a headline "Moncton takes Brisbane" and their environment representative resigned because he was so humiliated. If what I am sure Anna Rose looks on as an enemy is so inept why not take the opportunity to say so. Instead she merely tries to smear anyone who opposes her for example linking them to big tobacco. Now the first study to ling tobacco to cancer was under the auspices of Adolf Hitler but was forgotten for twenty years so presumably we can ignore the link She also condemned someone for questioning assertions on side steam smoking. I have a copy of an email sent by Simon Chapman where he advocates concealing research which showed low mortality from side stream smoking "half a person" springs to mind. It was passed to me by a thoracic surgeon who was a militant anti smoker but believed in science not propaganda. Once again will someone answer my question have the IPCC predictions of 1991 been accurate or was someone giving false information on the Q&A session?

John, “I have a copy of an email sent by Simon Chapman where he advocates concealing research which showed low mortality from side stream smoking "half a person" springs to mind."

I'm calling BS on this. I have been working with Simon and others on an unrelated health issue and I know that's not what Simon does. He has nothing to hide and he enjoys confronting denialists like yourself with uncomfortable evidence. He also possesses a fairly pointed wit which tends to deflate precious egos like yours.

As for Moncton, he's certainly not a Lord as he likes to claim and he has been revealed as an unmitigated liar on numerous occasions. That you defend him reveals a lot, your gullibility in particular.

In any case, you lost any remaining credibility the minute you invoked Godwin's law.

I would refer you to the documents obtained by the Tobacco industry under discovery. Simon was worried about the low level of deaths resulting from a study "half a person" so he advocated concealing that data. So you can bullshit all you like but it is the truth. Simon Chapman has also published claiming the gun buyback of 1996 led to a progressive decline in gun related deaths. Leaving aside the fact it was declining at the same rate before the gun buyback he thus believes that your chances of being killed by a gun is inversely proportional to the length of time since the gun was destroyed. All of the newly banned firearms were seized and destroyed over a short period not over time, when a gun is destroyed it does not kill anyone in any future time period. Enough said

Yeah right, I always have tobacco industry documents on hand for occasions like this. Not. So maybe you can provide a link please?

I am aware of just how much the tobacco industry are happy to resort to fraud and twisted data to make a case courtesy of “merchants of doubt", I wonder if you've read it?

Looking forward to that link of yours.

I have a simpler solution. Why not ask Simon Chapman for a signed copy?

The whole point is that I actually reversed Godwin's law. Obviously there is a strong link between smoking and cancer, primarily but not exclusively lung. My point was not that all alarmists are like Hitler or whatever, it was and is that it is the evidence that matters not who paid for it. Adolf Hitler supported a study linking smoking to cancer does not mean that the link is false, obviously not. My original point was Anita Rose attacked someone on an issue unrelated to the issue in hand because he allegedly had questioned the popular belief that the case linking side stream smoking to cancer was beyond examination. In fact the ling is paper thin but who cares? Smoking in a confined space is no more acceptable than flatulence. It is about as acceptable as jumping queue and so it should be.

In other words, you don't really have any proof of your claim? Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

John, you really are some conspiracy theorist. Given your low regard for anybody who disagrees with you I can almost see how you might construe Simon's genuine concerns about data being misrepresented as an attempt to distort evidence but again, that says more about you than Simon. In any case, he doesn't advise concealing any data, I think an objective reader would see he is concerned journalists would represent seemingly low incidences of death resulting from second-hand smoke is little or nothing to worry about. That's all.

I can understand his position having been verballed a couple of times by a journalist I once trusted. Very few journalists have any decent understanding of statistics, it seems you don't either.

We get it John. Anything the tobacco industry says is correct in your mind and anything Anna Rose says is wrong because she is the 'enemy'.

No, I suggest you read things more carefully, the Tobacco Industry did not say it Simon Chapman said it. He also believes guns destroyed in 1996 can still kill years later but at a lower rate over time. Anna Rose has gained some international infamy for refusing to debate people she disagrees with. The link to one of the papers bemoaning low deaths from sidestream smoking are up, I would have thought it something to celebrate if avoidable deaths were lower than had been thought, not something you should try and disguise. By the way has anyone been able to support the original statement that the IPCC 1991 projections have actually occurred?

Absolutely John. The response by Matthew England to Nick Minchin's comment on the temperqature stasis which is accepted by all of the most dedicated climatologists supporting the idea of warming. Phil Jones in CRU says that no statistically significant warming has occurred sinnce 1995. Minchin was more circumspect saying since 1998. For England to happen to be there in time to put his silly spoke in as obviously set up beforehand by the producer or the chairman, was quite the silliest thing the ABC could have done and at the same time the most dishonest. Unfortunately England is now part of that dishonesty, although in general I have found him a very reasonable person to deal with.

Any of the latest plots of Global Temperatures from GISS, CRU UAH etc show the same trend in the last ten years - downwards. See http://www.ruralsoft.com.aulimatescientific

John Nicol jonicol18@bigpond.com

Ian, is that all you can say in regard to the science of climate change? Christy, as you should know, is one of the most respected climatologists who was part of the IPCC process before he withdrew because of the dishonesty in the poreparation of the chapter for administrators. He was working in atmospheric science before many of the claimants to high status such as Pitman, English and Karoly, had even thought of the climate. If you look at their backgrounds you will find that most "climatologists" are re-badged geographers whose knowledge of atmospheric physics is zilch..

I said we get it John. You hate Anna Rose and you support big tobacco. What else have you got?