A quick reading of abstracts indicates that Michaels thinks that climate will indeed continue along the current trend (increasing global avg temps), but thinks that future temps will fall into the lower third of the IPCC projections. In short Michaels and his co-authors are not disputing the existence of AGW (at least not in the refs given), but dispute the higher end temperature predictions and have some differences of opinion how increasing temps will effect severe rainfall events and hurricanes.

Which is essentially what I posted some time back, if you read it. But, then, I have the book. The book is quite sufficient for me now, so I will not be scarfing up the rest of the reference material.

Financial matters are absorbing my time now: the economy threatens to get me long before the climate.

If you turn up anything interesting, you can reach me at mannnin@yahoo.com, rather than this four-deep page of Joyner's.

Now was that really so hard?

At first blush it appears your first reference directly deals with the topic at hand and the second deals with it in the course of the paper, the third and fourth deal with potential effects of warming on climate rather than the existence or extent of AGW.

A quick reading of abstracts indicates that Michaels thinks that climate will indeed continue along the current trend (increasing global avg temps), but thinks that future temps will fall into the lower third of the IPCC projections. In short Michaels and his co-authors are not disputing the existence of AGW (at least not in the refs given), but dispute the higher end temperature predictions and have some differences of opinion how increasing temps will effect severe rainfall events and hurricanes.

More after I have had time to read and digest the articles.

A question for you manning; have you read any of the peer reviewed articles referenced?

Which in itself would mean that a good percentage are repeat references and that a good percentage of the papers referenced come to an entirely different conclusion than that forwarded by the book. Somehow I suspect that this is the case with a number of the peer reviewed articles referenced and my guess would be that is the case with the majority of them. You have apparently read the book so it should not be difficult for you to pull out the peer reviewed article references that actually support the author's and your position. Why spend so much time and energy avoiding this?

Apparently, I have not been clear to you. One more try. Michaels et al have created composite charts from the source data and peer references and then commented upon the comparisons: For example the three versions of the IPCC temperature predictions plus added new source data, and has then commented upon the disparities shown as a result. There is no single reference short of the book/page numbers for each of these several syntheses in the book that support his conclusions. Without the book, these page numbers would be useless. The supporting papers referenced from Journals, the IPCC, etc. do indeed reach their own conclusions, so all of the value added of importance is contained in Michael's comparative analysis while using newly available information from peer references. Is this so hard for you to understand?

There is no "Superpaper" that is peer reviewed and referenced: that is what the book provides in somewhat more readable form than a pure paper. And, just for the record, while I agree with much of what Michaels writes, because he makes sense,I am not in a position to verify the background.

Michaels does refer to some of his older background papers, however. Perhaps they will help you:

Michaels,P. J. et al, "Revised 21st Century Temperature Projections" Climate Reserch 23 (2001): 1-9.

Michaels, P.j. ET AL, ""Extended Comment on Impacts of CO2-Induced Warming on Simulated Hurricane Intensity and Precipitation: Sensivity to the Choice of Model and Convective Scheme" Journal of Climate 18(2005) 5,179-82.

Michaels, P.J. et al. "Trends in Precipitation on the Wettest Days of the Year across the Contiguous United States," International Journal of Climatology. 24(2004) 1,872-82.

Michaels, et al, "Sea Surface Temperatures amd Tropical Cyclones in the Atlantic Basin" Geophysical Research Letters 33(2006)doi: 10.1029/2006GL0025757.

289 odd old references are the starting point, then, for Michaels to perform his analysis and draw some cogent conclusions in the book.

While these references are used, if you, or anyone, were to attempt to assess this work and to review it, you could not do so without the book itself, including the rest of the peer references in the back. That has been my sticking point.

Hence, sending you these or other references from the back of the book is worthless, and there is no way short of copying the book proper to make the main work available. The book is copyrighted. Is this clear now? It is the book, or nothing, simply said.

When you position requires conspiracy theories, you should reconsider your position.

It is not my political conspiracy theories that I am concerned with, but the evidence of the public treatment of Michaels and others in unfair and politicized ways that is mentioned promanently in his book that concern me. I have no first hand experience with it in DAGW, Michaels does.

You have Al Gore to thank for raising the spectre of conspiracy in GW/CC/AGW with his "An Inconvenient Truth" pitch, and his subsequent comments and actions around the globe. 10 lies do not make a truth (or was it more than 10?).

Let GG speak for himselof, Michael.

Michael has represented my position well in this conversation.

I have no need to type 289 references into here with my two fingers, and a few references, 5, 10, or 20, would not be sufficient to decide anything for or against the propositions.

Still, why not provide those 5, 10, or 20?

In fact, a good percentage are from IPCC itself.

Which in itself would mean that a good percentage are repeat references and that a good percentage of the papers referenced come to an entirely different conclusion than that forwarded by the book. Somehow I suspect that this is the case with a number of the peer reviewed articles referenced and my guess would be that is the case with the majority of them. You have apparently read the book so it should not be difficult for you to pull out the peer reviewed article references that actually support the author's and your position. Why spend so much time and energy avoiding this?

I see where the AGW/CC scientific community has become so politically dominant and closed that they can use influence to block contributions from being published and reviewed in the classical manner and places...It was a self-defeating one anyway under the prevailing conditions of "that kind of peer review", which is not something to be bragging about at all. Sensorship, whether overt or covert is highly distasteful to unearth.

Given this, I take that you don't know any scientists. If you did you would realize that a conspiracy of this proportion somehow covering 80%+ of all scientist and controlling all major scientific publications globally is laughable on its face.

Anonymous peer review, isn't it? How convenient. So how does anyone get a "non-reviewable", or "non-reviewed" paper published anywhere of scientific importance? I suggest that they cannot do so with any ease.

It's not, nor has it ever been, easy to get published in any top ranking journal (Science, Nature, etc). There are, however, many other journals to submit to and if the research and the accompanying article are sound it will be publishable in one of them. If the research and accompanying article are unsound then it is indeed quite difficult to get published in any of them.

This leaves the control of the review process in the editors' hands and their secret lists of reviewers. If the editor and his cohorts around the community are mantled in a new orthodoxy and politicized as well, by AGW/CC or DAGW, for instance, the wee small dissenting voices seem to have little or no chance of a good hearing.

When you position requires conspiracy theories, you should reconsider your position.

There is certainly little reluctance on the part of the media to sensationalize...

There is little reluctance on the part of the media to sensationalize anything. That is a prime reason to go to primary sources rather than simply blindly trusting mass media accounts of anything, particularly anything technical. In this case the primary source is the scientific literature. Why are you so opposed to going there?

This leaves the control of the review process in the editors' hands and their secret lists of reviewers. If the editor and his cohorts around the community are mantled in a new orthodoxy and politicized as well, by AGW/CC or DAGW, for instance, the wee small dissenting voices seem to have little or no chance of a good hearing.

On the other hand, if reviewers were to sign and publish their reviews, there would be an open exchange of pros and cons possible.

Given the quite large amount of money being shoveled into AGW-related efforts, there is a natural motive for the participants to keep the ball rolling as far as possible, for all the reasons of getting ahead: money, fame, positions, degrees, opportunity to do their research, and on and on... minus, of course, their integrity.

I do not see where there is an adequate scientific check on this rush to orthodoxy at all, yet we have the new administration talking in many billions of dollars for AGW/CC, and quite possibly DAGW. So the issue hits us all directly in the pocketbook now.

The motivations of some groups to be able to control the efforts to mitigate AGW/CC from an international governing position represents far greater potential woes for the US.

There is certainly little reluctance on the part of the media to sensationalize AGW reports from the community.

All it takes is a whiff of Al Gore around Obama to start the shudders.

I see where the AGW/CC scientific community has become so politically dominant and closed that they can use influence to block contributions from being published and reviewed in the classical manner

I believe the classical manner is "review and publish", not "publish and review".

It was a self-defeating one anyway under the prevailing conditions of "that kind of peer review", which is not something to be bragging about at all. Sensorship, whether overt or covert is highly distasteful to unearth.

Peer-review isn't censorship, nobody is preventing the dissemination of rejected articles. Peer-review provides a mechanism where by readers of approved articles can trust the basic claims and science in those articles without having to verify them independently.

Let GG speak for himselof, Michael.

He'll correct me when I'm wrong.

I see where the AGW/CC scientific community has become so politically dominant and closed that they can use influence to block contributions from being published and reviewed in the classical manner and places, or they intimidate scientists into conforming to the orthodoxy, or into holding their fire as the DAGW case is being made in the political and mass media.

And then they claim, well, your book has not been properly reviewed, so it cannot be considered! Nice! That has been the context of this book issue. I believe that position to be dead wrong, and basically designed to shut out the opposition and counter-argumentation.

So my simple proposition is for you to open your mind, get a copy of the book from a library, and have a read for yourself, now without the onerous conditions of your challenge on your head.

It was a self-defeating one anyway under the prevailing conditions of "that kind of peer review", which is not something to be bragging about at all. Sensorship, whether overt or covert is highly distasteful to unearth.

Nor, for that matter, is he going to seek out the book in order to pick the references that he is supposed to counter, that also doesn't make sense from a debate perspective.

Grewgills made a very reasonable offer, but you have been altogether unreasonable in your response. Nobody is going to fault him for not going forward at this point.

He has 289 references from peer-reviewed Journals to work with, carefully annotated in the book, which uses these references to make its case and to present evidence in support.

If you think that is all you need to give him, then he shouldn't need to give you anything more that a reference to a place where you can find 10 times the number of references to contrasting conclusions. Would you accept?