I am on quite good terms with most scientists with whom I interact, and have no problem with science in general. Even in climatology, there are climatologists who are not afraid to express opinions that conflict with the herd. They are the climatologists that I can respect.

As for making money off carbon credits, that is a separate issue which has nothing to do with any climatologists so far as I am aware. If you know of any climatologists who stand to make a lot of money from carbon credits, you should do a posting on it.

Having said that, most of your arguments in the comments, in particular those about consensus and the motives of scientists, are far worse contradictions of the truth, so it works both ways. I’m prepared to accept my wording was a little too strong but I’m still concerned by your tarring all climatologists who don’t agree with you as some conspiracy of people making money off carbon credits that don’t even exist yet.

It is clear that climate papers are not being held to a high standard, so long as they support the “correct” mechanism of climate change. There are enough news outlets, websites, and blogs that unwittingly sing along with the choir. There is no need for you and Paul to join in the mindless singalong.

The Sloan paper, as well as several others, states that if Svensmark’s hypothesis is true that cosmic rays are the main driver of temperature change in the last twenty years, solar variation and cosmic rays should have led to less warming (in the Sloan case, more low lying cloud) as we are now. As we are in an La Nina event now, this is doubly so. We should, by all the arguments other than CO2 forcing, be at a global temperature WAY below what we are. We’re at the low point in the solar cycle. We’re in a La Nina. This should mean temperatures have gone down as cloud cover goes up due to more cosmic rays escaping low solar wind and reaching the atmosphere to seed clouds. They have not. 2005 and 2007 were very hot years, at or near the peak of 1998 depending on the set of satellites you use. The overall trend of temperatures has remained to climb but the solar variation should have led to temperatures going down.

This is what I said in my original post and it is no less true despite your increasingly aggressive posts. If this trend line were different, I’d be agreeing with you. If I see good explanation for this being the way it is, I could well change my mind. That you are not even listening to my arguments means you are the one with a religion, not me. Prove to me what you’re saying. Only then are you backing up your words with meaning.

EDIT: for instance, this reply to the Sloan paper by Professor Nir Shaviv is interesting and contributes by criticising the Sloan paper directly on the methods, rather than resorting as you have to smears about consensus and how the whole of climatology is being bribed by carbon profits that don’t exist yet. Shaviv’s argument is interesting and is a valid criticism of the Sloan paper, as far as I can tell, although I’d want to see some thoughts on Shaviv’s questions from Sloan and others to get the full picture. I can do your job for you by finding good opposing viewpoints but if you want to have any credibility I’d recommend you find your own rebuttals in future.

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/04/sun-climate-link-reply-to-sloan-and.html

If you can actually put forward concrete refutations of Tomas’ points, as he has repeatedly requested you to do, please be our guest. If we were averse to people debating with us on subjects we care about, we’d have squelched your comments long ago. But experience has demonstrated that people usually dig themselves a hole if given a shovel and the space to work with. If all you want to do is grind an axe over your maniacal hatred of Al Gore, you have your own blog already. If you wish to debate Tomas on scientific grounds, please do so – point out Tomas’s mis-statements and refute them, if they are so blindingly obvious. Think of the favour you’ll be doing by peeling the scales from our eyes!

But for goodness sake, put up or shut up – do you have any idea how shrill and bitter you sound?