UV-RAY

No it's arrogance in dismissing others opinions. You only have to look through all the threads in the climate section to find dismissive posts on sceptics postings, regardless if such post presents either peer reviewed literature or from a top scientist who just happens to disagree on the magnitude of warming associated with CO2. As for Pete's dismissive post on sceptics which obviously was directed at myself, please provide evidence and not wild accusations of slander,

That's exactly my viewpoint also Jethro, no one can say with any confidence what has caused the warming or stalling and it's this arrogance amongst some proponents of AGW which causes some of the conflict.

Your not a politician by any chance are you as you have a knack of answering a question with a question. So again why have temp stalled over the last seventeen years and if this continues for another thirteen years we will have a new starting point for climatic data. Lol, post of the thread and sums up nicely exactly were we are.

Like I've produced and still await a reasonable scientific answer too, rather than more nonsense like this. So I'll ask you a question then, can you explain why global temps have stalled for nearly seventeen years and remember this is over half of the period needed for forming a consensus for climatic data. Also please explain how you can be certain that CO2 was responsible for past warmings, because if you can find a factual link that can be proven beyond reasonable doubt then may I suggest you put you name forward for a Nobel prize. Until then I'll take the sceptic viewpoint that all options are still available,

Yes it appears some cannot abide others posting against the so called consensus. Remember we all have to tow the party line of AGW.

Indeed loafer and like Pete states if somethings posted you disagree with you just reply in the appropriate thread.

Agreed, all the replies have been fine Pete and sometimes it's hard to decipher what is meant to be humour from aggression on a thread.

So A level Physics and Chemistry disqualifies you from both knowing facts and forming an opinion. That probably explains why climate scientists are in world of their own and dismiss and oppose all those ( even qualified ) who question aspects of their work. Also is this thread not for you heathens!!

Lol, your joking right....... And what may these significant changes be then because I see none.

Funny you should ask Pete, I've a degree in Business studies but only an A level in Physics and Chemistry. Why does that not qualify me in making observational posts, or do I need to approach the IPCC and ask to become a lead author for the next instalment of the chronicles of misinformation? Really? Would they be affiliated to the WWF or Greenpeace by any chance?

They will scratch their heads as their lead authors are undergraduates with degrees in anything other than sciences. The main reason why climate models are an epic fail is they work on assumptions that rising CO2 will lead to rising temps, if only it was as simple as that. Sometimes it's best to get out of the lab and into the field and shake off those cobwebs and funding worries and observe what's actually happening.

Many a moons ago I use to support Greenpeace, that was prior to it becoming a political tool for the middle classes.

It is, but its all about trends and IMO the trend is for it to remain dry and settled for many.

I won't comment on the embroidered remark but I'm not so sure that this season will be very active due to the lower than average SST's.

Will you show the same contempt for the journalists in the guardian I wonder, or are double standards now the norm?

I think that's what the CFS V2 model was showing as we head on into late July/August. Still that would be over 4 weeks of fantastic summer sunshine and about time too.

Yes but proxies need a very careful selection process and certainly need more than one pine cone. Not one person can attribute any warming of the last thousand years on rising CO2 levels, anyone saying otherwise is only using a guessometer like the rest of us. This is why I find those saying the science is settled a little odd because if it was as settled as they say it is then why has there been no further warming for nearly seventeen years.

Lol, so your denying how certain proxies were used without telling the public just how one tree can be used to hold up part of a theory. Take a look at all those scientist who've spoke out only to find they've been frozen out. Off course if you think that climate scientist are whiter than white then that's your opinion and your entitled to that. Me I view science and scientist as constantly challenging viewpoints when new data comes to light, not shutting up shop if such a viewpoint challenges an almost religious like consensus. Cleared by his own little group of yes men doesn't make him any less guilty.

Pete, do we need to bring up past events such as emails, hockey sticks and Yamal trees. Both sides spread disinformation but if your too blinkered to see that then your part of the problem as well. I know no other scientific field where so much nonsense gets posted by both sides and all this does is make science look amateurish. Look at at the number of scientist ostracised for daring to question the consensus, this isn't how science works surely. What is needed is more climate scientist like Judith Curry who aren't afraid to ask probing questions whilst still being at the forefront of the science.

You could also argue at the disinformation put out there by climate scientist themselves. As for your constant preaching of how bad all those are who don't agree with you are, well its tiresome too say the least.

The whole peer review process IMO needs reviewing as it appears that those doing the reviewing do so from a blinkered position to start with.

Indeed, it appears some think others can't think for themselves so have to argue every minute detail. I applaud the separate threads, one only has to look at other climate forums and the previous incarnations of this one too see why separate threads are necessary.

The way I see it is having separate threads for topical discussion is the way forward, how many times have we've seen threads derailed by one viewpoint or another. IMO it's perfectly simple you post the appropriate topic in the appropriate thread, if you have issue with such topic reply in the opposing thread with reasons why.

Indeed Frosty, I can't see why one or two are despondent really. Too me it looks a fantastic outlook for the next 10+ days, granted it may well be less warm but come on compared to the last 6 summers its a belter, besides that its the UK not the Bahamas.

Its certainly very interesting , I do wonder whether the first signs of a recovery start at 80N, food for thought.