Politics And AGW/GW

[Solar Cycles]

1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas- check out various textbooks on the issue explaining the science on how CO2 is part of the feedback process that helps keep the earth warm. The theory is, if we increase the CO2 concentration the balance will be tipped in favour of a warmer climate (to what extent, however, remains unclear).

2. Climate models support the AGW theory. Yes, they aren't foolproof, and yes there are potentially flawed assumptions going into them, but they are a line of evidence.

3. Humans are changing the Earth in numerous ways other than belching out CO2. For example contributing to methane production, cutting down the rainforests and changing planetary albedo. Most of these extra forcings point towards warming.

4. The planet has warmed over the last 30 years and, as yet, there is no convincing evidence that natural forcing can account for all of the warming (there's certainly strong evidence for it accounting for some of the warming, but not all of it).

Nothing 100% conclusive, but to my mind most of the evidence points towards AGW being a factor, albeit of unclear extent.

Condascending answers get you nowhere ( so I've been told ).

1. Condascending I know it's a greenhouse gas, no proof that extra CO2 is a factor either!

2. What the hell as that got to do with it? That's the problem with warmist, just because man has done y he must be responsible for x. A very weak case!! ( sorry answer for 3 this )

3. Climate models have been way off the mark up to now, how can you rely on flawed data as proof. Junk in Junk out!

4. Yes it as warmed, and of as yet there is no evidence to suggest that CO2 is responisble for any warming in the past! Enso and very high solar activity, are probably the culprits.

5. Case concluded! No warming in over 10 years, clock ticking and lot's of climate scientist getting hot under the collar. Time for a new vocation me thinks!!! :o

You clearly miss the point TWS. Solar Cycles is the world's foremost extant climate-scientist!

I have a honours degree in common sense, and thinking for myself. Something you drones should try!!!!

[pottyprof]

I have a honours degree in common sense, and thinking for myself. Something you drones should try!!!!

Hmm.. X isn't a qualification you know....

Anyway.. Lets not get into the name calling peeps.. My fingers starting to twitch on the ban button.. :o

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Re. Tamara's post, you can stifle any debate with extreme use of the "everyone's entitled to their opinions" card. Why bother having a debate, if someone can spout any old nonsense and just say, "I'm entitled to my opinion so you have to accept everything I say" and then keep repeating it over and over again, preventing any kind of debate from getting off the ground? If all opinions are equally valid, is it equally valid to work from the premise that 2+2=2358945893468934689 as it is to assume 2+2=4? While there is often more than one possible "right" answer to a question, there are usually at least some answers that can be proved to be false.

In the old days I used to be accepting of the "everyone's entitled to their opinions" idea, but I'm increasingly of the view that tolerance is self-limiting. There is generally no harm in tolerating views, even intolerant views, if they do not pose a threat to a tolerant society. But if we tolerate the use of views in a way that is detrimental to the collective good of the population, then as a whole, tolerance suffers. In a discussion we need well-reasoned arguments, and it is entirely possible to get good discussions on here with well-reasoned debates, but some people prefer to trash the debates with all manner of circular reasoning and repeated use of the "we're all entitled to our opinions" get-out-clause. In essence, we have to respect two things, not just entitlement to views, but also the quality of the discussion itself.

From Noggin and more especially Laserguy, all I see is arguments that work backwards from the premise "AGW is a myth", latch onto anything that agrees with it, and conclude from this cherry-picked "evidence" that AGW is a myth. If that's seen to be good debate, perhaps some read-ups on internet articles on straw man fallacies and circular reasoning/begging the question might be in order.

Nope. Some of those who believe in AGW may do so, but it's not even close to being all. On my part, I would like to believe that there is no such thing as AGW, but having studied the evidence, I have concluded- for now- that it is long odds against. Hopefully some new evidence might come to fruition in the near future that might challenge my current view, but for my view to change I need to see substantiated evidence. "AGW is a myth because AGW is a myth" just doesn't cut it. And before anyone accuses me of being closed minded, I've seen good points challenging AGW by Captain Bobski recently, and there was a decent article posted earlier by Jethro. That's the kind of scepticism we need to be seeing more of.

So is my opinion is invalid then, if (according to you) I am just playing the 'this is my opinion card' with nothing (again according to you) to back it up? Am I one of those who, in your view, 'spout any old nonsense'? Are you suggesting that you can easily prove my posts (or anyone else's) wrong about negative feedbacks - clouds, changing solar cycles, the very grey areas that the IPCC admit uncertainty ...yet in the next breath they suggest 90% confidence for? It gives the impression, very much to me as though you are.

How do you differentiate that your opinion is more valid by saying you have seen nothing yet to persuade you that AGW is not as prevalent as is suggested? :o I fail to see how you having that as an opinion is somehow more acceptable and less 'stifling', to use your own word, than me or others disagreeing with the very same thing? Or is that how in turn someone actually tries to gag someone so their own opinion can prevail by employing the same tactic as they profess to be complaining about? Because I find repeated accusations of having an empty opinion stifling as well very unilluminating for me. Oh and plain wrong as well.

Whilst I am moaning, something else, but is very related and relevant to the sentiments being batted to and fro here. Sense of humour wanes when one is decreed to hold a belief about climate change soley in order to hope that snowy airflows over Hastings are sustained. Esp when taken up from ad nauseam repeatings of the same from a certain member, with alleged sound northern thinking, who resides at the other end of the country. The suggestion that someone's opinion of climate change is centred soley around a nervous disposition to losing a certain weather type is ridiculous, rather infantile and an insult to their intelligence. I happen to disagree with the extent of AGW, but strangely enough I am glad that I have started looking into it with an open mind and not just 'disliking the thought of it' (as repeatedly accused). It might please AGW proponents if I lied and said I had 'seen the light' and did a backtrack about man-made activities but unfortunately I haven't seen anything to verify and stick with my initial closed minded decision. Why can this not be respected? Not just me - but for others too? In the same way as you have seen enough to validate your own thoughts and would hope for respect for that too.. It is apparently ok for you to dislike the prospect of it, as you admit - so what right to criticise others for the same thing? Other than the belief that they spout nonsense in terms of trying to justify it perhaps? That is an insult to one's intelligence and hence why there is a sense of humour failure.

Predictably no doubt, I will be accused of being over sensitive and over defensive in what I have said here - but I will correct misrepresentations both of myself and also defend others (like Noggin and Laserguy) if I feel they are being portrayed unfairly or incorrectly. Not suggesting here they can't 'fight their own patch of course'

How do we know what is tolerable on this subject if we there are so many uncertainties attached to it? On that basis, quite apart from respecting what people believe in it's own right, one view is as valid as another (and therefore as tolerable as another) in the circumstances is it not? With respect, you might do well to retain some of that tolerance of people being entitled to their opinion. It is a tolerance and respect for others that I had previously noticed and appreciated in your postings. It smacks of arrogance and disrespect otherwise if you feel that your own opinion is above others on the assumption that they are 'empty vessels' and don't carry the same weight of thought and backing as your own. Unless because you are studying the subject you feel you know so much more and therefore so empowered to make judgements and dismissals of others 'mere mortal' opinion ?

Edited April 15, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Solar Cycles]

Hmm.. X isn't a qualification you know....

Anyway.. Lets not get into the name calling peeps.. My fingers starting to twitch on the ban button..

I thought Drones was rather apt! Tongue firmly in cheek PP!! :o

[Thundery wintry showers]

Condascending answers get you nowhere ( so I've been told ).

1. Condascending I know it's a greenhouse gas, no proof that extra CO2 is a factor either!

2. What the hell as that got to do with it? That's the problem with warmist, just because man has done y he must be responsible for x. A very weak case!! ( sorry answer for 3 this )

3. Climate models have been way off the mark up to now, how can you rely on flawed data as proof. Junk in Junk out!

4. Yes it as warmed, and of as yet there is no evidence to suggest that CO2 is responisble for any warming in the past! Enso and very high solar activity, are probably the culprits.

5. Case concluded! No warming in over 10 years, clock ticking and lot's of climate scientist getting hot under the collar. Time for a new vocation me thinks!!! :winky:

1. Eh? Surely basic laws of physics: if CO2 helps warm the planet, then a bit more CO2 should help warm the planet a bit more by absorbing more shortwave radiation coming from the earth?

2. "Climate models have been way off the mark up to now"- evidence please? I acknowledged that they aren't foolproof, but saying they're therefore useless is like saying we shouldn't ever predict 10 days out based on the GFS because of its dodgy track record. Plus we have no way of proving the accuracy of climate model predictions either way as yet.

3. Eh? I mentioned a list of possible other ways that man could be warming the planet other than the release of CO2. How is that a weak argument for the existence of AGW?

4. ...apart from the fact that in the past we didn't have humans pumping

5. ...no, it's not that easy I'm afraid!

Re. Tamara's post, I am not saying it is wrong, or intolerable, to be sceptical about AGW. What I'm condemning is the approach "I'm entitled to my opinion, therefore I'm entitled to be extremely closed-minded about it and not back it up with any independent reasoning, and to dismiss any counterarguments by repeating it ad nauseum and backing it up with arguments like 'A is true because B is true because A is true because B is true because...' and launching straw men and personal attacks!" Or how about "circular reasoning is a valid line of argument because that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it". Accusing me of failing to tolerate scepticism is somewhat mis-representing my position.

It's a bit rich accusing me of failing to respect other views when the very thing I'm condemning is, in fact, lack of respect for other views. What all this boils down to is the old paradox of how far we should be prepared to tolerate the intolerant. It is when the intolerance takes over the threads that I stop being tolerant of it.

[laserguy]

I have no vested interest whatsoever - public or private - in continuing to believe in AGW, please don't include me in your dismissal.

Once upon a time (August 2007) you had the decency to admit "These debates are great fun AND educational..." Perhaps it's now time for you to leave the arguing to those who care about these things, and want to understand more. You could run along and do a little harmless dog-fighting or badger-baiting instead.

And I too have no vested interest in exposing the AGW 'thing' for what it is - I'm just a regular family guy,simple as that! August 2007 seems a long,long time away now and things have moved on. They're just as much fun on the whole,but no longer educational. All I hear is unrelenting rubbish from the you-know-whos and blatantly outrageous and ridiculous claims about the validity of AGW which even a switched on five year-old could see through. And I'd have thought you'd have twigged by now that I am animal lover,Ossie. No wonder you're so slow on the uptake re AGW! That last comment was totally unwarranted,unnecessary and truth be told I am (rarely) hurt and offended that you could stoop so low. I thought better,much better of you as you know from private exchanges. Why don't you contribute something worthwhile to these threads (though I'm aware you consider my input to be anything but...) instead of seeing almost everything I say as an opportunity to psychoanalyse me and reach all the wrong conclusions?

Anyways,sorry about the diversion. Again,and almost inevitably this thread is on 'that' spiral again but I couldn't let that go. So we're almost back to square 1 with the 'I'm right and you're wrong' scenario. Way I see it now all we deniers (grr,grr) have to do is sit back and relax,watch things unfold while AGW adherants sink ever lower under the crushing weight of what's actually happening,not what's happening in the dodgy data riddled computer chips of certain bodies. As some have rightly pointed out,what I post these days mostly consist of ridicule and jest. That's where we're at. And as also pointed out,C Bob,Village Plank and others have contributed with some often heavyweight stuff. All for nowt tho' it seems,as those who have the 'faith' or the 'vested interest' (and believe me there's plenty) simply will not be moved. Why bother,then? And just why is it that some of us (inc me!) get so worked up about it? I don't think it's an ego thing,really I don't. I couldn't care less if I'm wrong or right when it comes down to it. The nub is... I know I'm right :winky: . There y'go Ossie,a smiley just for you! Now run along and do the governments dirty work,be a good lad. Touche. (How do you do that slanty line over the 'e'.whatever it's called?) Hey you seen that on the news,about getting two grand to trade-in your ol' banger for a new mota so as to save the British (eh??) car industry? Dang,there's me thinking they wanted to wean folk off cars to 'save the planet'. My mistake,sorry. Oh well,some veg to plant out,see y'all later...

Stop press,just seen your post,TWS! To address:

1). Fair enough,but we are talking a few parts per million.

2). You said it: no way of proving the accuracy or otherwise of climate models. So why act as if there is?

3). When talking of AGW the focus as far as joe bloggs is concerned is 100% on CO2. Stop muddying the waters!

4). True,but it's been much ,much colder in the past with much,much more CO2 around. I guess climate does not discriminate against natural or man-made CO2 - it's CO2!

5). No comment!

Now where did I put that trowel?

[weather eater]

Condascending answers get you nowhere ( so I've been told ).

3. Climate models have been way off the mark up to now, how can you rely on flawed data as proof. Junk in Junk out!

If that is the case then the same could be said of our knowledge of natural cycles, patchy, vague, potentially flawed and not enough detailed data to be accurate. so the same junk in junk out argument would apply.

4). True,but it's been much ,much colder in the past with much,much more CO2 around.

Says who, and what method did they use to find this out or is it just a scientific theory arrived at by use of a climate model.

Edited April 15, 2009 by weather eater

[Thundery wintry showers]

1). Fair enough,but we are talking a few parts per million.

2). You said it: no way of proving the accuracy or otherwise of climate models. So why act as if there is?

3). When talking of AGW the focus as far as joe bloggs is concerned is 100% on CO2. Stop muddying the waters!

4). True,but it's been much ,much colder in the past with much,much more CO2 around. I guess climate does not discriminate against natural or man-made CO2 - it's CO2!

5). No comment!

1. doesn't matter, a small increase could still have a significant effect. Or it could not.

2. Actually, there are good ways of showing the accuracy of climate models at simulating the past, and many of them are currently very good. The big problem is, "they can simulating the past, but does that mean they can predict the future?" Your answer to that seems to be "no", which is no less bad than saying "yes".

3- To make the "AGW is a myth" conclusion a certainty, it is necessary to show that none of the human forcings are likely to be causing AGW of any kind. Point 3 seems a very deliberate attempt to ignore all of the factors except CO2 from the analysis so that when CO2 is "debunked" the "AGW is a myth" conclusion can follow. More of a point-scoring tactic than a reasoned argument.

4. ...but in the past we never had anthropogenic sources of CO2 pumping it out into the atmosphere. And what about natural forcings? Those who insist "AGW is a myth" like to point to the natural forcings that could be causing the recent warming. Could those same natural factors have caused the planet to be much warmer in the past despite more CO2?

5. No comment.

The second paragraph contains the usual straw man attacks. I have acknowledged the good contributions of Captain Bobski et al- but that doesn't count, apparently?!

[Solar Cycles]

1. Eh? Surely basic laws of physics: if CO2 helps warm the planet, then a bit more CO2 should help warm the planet a bit more by absorbing more shortwave radiation coming from the earth?

2. "Climate models have been way off the mark up to now"- evidence please? I acknowledged that they aren't foolproof, but saying they're therefore useless is like saying we shouldn't ever predict 10 days out based on the GFS because of its dodgy track record. Plus we have no way of proving the accuracy of climate model predictions either way as yet.

3. Eh? I mentioned a list of possible other ways that man could be warming the planet other than the release of CO2. How is that a weak argument for the existence of AGW?

4. ...apart from the fact that in the past we didn't have humans pumping

5. ...no, it's not that easy I'm afraid!

Re. Tamara's post, I am not saying it is wrong, or intolerable, to be sceptical about AGW. What I'm condemning is the approach "I'm entitled to my opinion, therefore I'm entitled to be extremely closed-minded about it and not back it up with any independent reasoning, and to dismiss any counterarguments by repeating it ad nauseum and backing it up with arguments like 'A is true because B is true because A is true because B is true because...' and launching straw men and personal attacks!" Or how about "circular reasoning is a valid line of argument because that's my opinion and I'm entitled to it". Accusing me of failing to tolerate scepticism is somewhat mis-representing my position.

It's a bit rich accusing me of failing to respect other views when the very thing I'm condemning is, in fact, lack of respect for other views. What all this boils down to is the old paradox of how far we should be prepared to tolerate the intolerant. It is when the intolerance takes over the threads that I stop being tolerant of it.

1.No evidence of excess CO2 contributing to the past warming. I've posted futher back in another thread about this!

2. Stop it please, I'm rolling around the floor laughing at that one! Climate models are about as accurate as GFS is at +384!!

3.Yes man has raped the planets resources, but to assume that man has done done A and is then responsible for B ( AGW ), is stretching it!

4. See above!

5. Time is ticking, P45's are in the post, time for climate scientist to look for a proper job. One that doesn't blindly follow a theory. I hear the banking industry is on the lookout for aspiring staticians!

[weather eater]

5. Time is ticking, P45's are in the post, time for climate scientist to look for a proper job. One that doesn't blindly follow a theory. I hear the banking industry is on the lookout for aspiring staticians!

Which one, or do you mean climate scientist's in general aren’t climate scientist's behind the theory’s of natural cycles as well.

[Solar Cycles]

Which one, or do you mean climate scientist's in general aren't climate scientist's behind the theory's of natural cycles as well.

They are, but underplay their significance due to their misguided ( blinkered ) views!

[Thundery wintry showers]

1.No evidence of excess CO2 contributing to the past warming. I've posted futher back in another thread about this!

2. Stop it please, I'm rolling around the floor laughing at that one! Climate models are about as accurate as GFS is at +384!!

3.Yes man has raped the planets resources, but to assume that man has done done A and is then responsible for B ( AGW ), is stretching it!

4. See above!

5. Time is ticking, P45's are in the post, time for climate scientist to look for a proper job. One that doesn't blindly follow a theory. I hear the banking industry is on the lookout for aspiring staticians!

1. Apart from the evidence I've just given, and what earlier thread are you talking about?

2. Actually, I'm the one rolling around the floor laughing at that one. First you say that climate models can't be used as an argument for AGW because we can't determine their accuracy. Then you say that they're as accurate as the GFS is at T+384! Er, they can't both be true!

3. I am not "assuming" anything, just making the point that there are many other ways in which humans could be having a warming impact on the climate. Attacking a weakened version of the argument, rather than the argument itself- not a very persuasive tactic at the best of times.

4. See above!

5. or time for some of the sceptics to stop saying "AGW is a myth because AGW is a myth and I'm entitled to my opinions so you've got to let me have my opinions but nobody else is allowed to have a different opinion because I'm right and they're wrong and that's also my opinion, so I'm right!"

[jethro]

!

5. or time for some of the sceptics to stop saying "AGW is a myth because AGW is a myth and I'm entitled to my opinions so you've got to let me have my opinions but nobody else is allowed to have a different opinion because I'm right and they're wrong and that's also my opinion, so I'm right!"

Or time for some of the pro's to stop saying "AGW is a fact because AGW is a fact and I'm entitled to my opinions so you've got to let me have my opinions but nobody else is allowed to have a different opinion because I'm right and they're wrong and that's also my opinion, so I'm right".

Really does cut both ways.

[Devonian]

Or time for some of the pro's to stop saying "AGW is a fact because AGW is a fact and I'm entitled to my opinions so you've got to let me have my opinions but nobody else is allowed to have a different opinion because I'm right and they're wrong and that's also my opinion, so I'm right".

No one says that. They say 'AGW exists - fact. AGW's magnitude and final magnitude - unknown, likely range 1.5-5C' As to the rest, look like flattery by imitation to me.

Really does cut both ways.

I don't agree, for the reasons given.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Or time for some of the pro's to stop saying "AGW is a fact because AGW is a fact and I'm entitled to my opinions so you've got to let me have my opinions but nobody else is allowed to have a different opinion because I'm right and they're wrong and that's also my opinion, so I'm right".

Really does cut both ways.

Indeed.

which is a very shortened version of my own words earlier today.

No one says that. They say 'AGW exists - fact. AGW's magnitude and final magnitude - unknown, likely range 1.5-5C' As to the rest, look like flattery by imitation to me.

I don't agree, for the reasons given.

Many of us could agree that AGW 'exists'. But ants can exist in the presence of elephants and get flattened by them.

[Thundery wintry showers]

Or time for some of the pro's to stop saying "AGW is a fact because AGW is a fact and I'm entitled to my opinions so you've got to let me have my opinions but nobody else is allowed to have a different opinion because I'm right and they're wrong and that's also my opinion, so I'm right".

Really does cut both ways.

It can indeed cut both ways, but it's a while since we last had a post from a pro-AGW perspective that used an argument like the above- in stark contrast with the recent shenanigans from the "anti" side. In particular I haven't seen any recent posts referring to a pro-AGW article and saying "see, this proves AGW is a big issue because the article says so, and the article is right because AGW is a big issue!" or along those lines.

I am giving reasoned arguments, and getting arguments like the above in response, so as I say, it's extremely rich telling me off for "not letting others have their opinions" when I am discussing and certain others are point scoring- obviously there are others as well who are discussing in a sane manner, but they too are being swamped out at the moment.

[jethro]

It can indeed cut both ways, but it's a while since we last had a post from a pro-AGW perspective that used an argument like the above- in stark contrast with the recent shenanigans from the "anti" side. In particular I haven't seen any recent posts referring to a pro-AGW article and saying "see, this proves AGW is a big issue because the article says so, and the article is right because AGW is a big issue!" or along those lines.

I am giving reasoned arguments, and getting arguments like the above in response, so as I say, it's extremely rich telling me off for "not letting others have their opinions" when I am discussing and certain others are point scoring- obviously there are others as well who are discussing in a sane manner, but they too are being swamped out at the moment.

I'm not telling anyone off, I'm merely saying that your criticism of sceptics can be turned exactly upon it's head, re-directed at the pro camp, and be just as applicable.

The pro side has proponents who will endlessly refer to the IPCC, refuse point blank to accept any flaw in those documents, nor accept that the IPCC leave huge gaps in their knowledge. Scientific evidence can be presented from reputable sources which highlight these gaps, provide solid science as to what these gaps mean, and provide information which goes some way to bridging those gaps and it will still be dismissed as not being from the IPCC. How does a sceptic proceed when facing such point blank refusal to accept anything other than IPCC sanctioned information? Do we sceptics have to wait until the next IPCC tome, keeping our fingers crossed that it is included, that we may then be listened to?

They are quite a few pro folk who also refute absolutely sound science, vehemently so, and then go onto say "they don't understand it" and then criticise those who do understand, claiming it to be arrogant that anyone on here profess to now better than their betters.

I could go on. The frustration cuts both ways, the pro side are not as well reasoned as you would like them to be.

[Thundery wintry showers]

the pro side are not as well reasoned as you would like them to be.

I agree with what you say except for that bit at the end. I don't think I've ever said that the pro-AGW side consists entirely (or even largely) of well reasoned arguments, the point was specifically relating to this thread where some (not all) on the "anti" side have gone bonkers- though I take your point about the continued "submission" to the IPCC (and incidentally having read the literature review from the Report, I do think the conclusions they reach are a bit strong given the evidence behind them).

Still disappointed to see so little discussion on your previous link by the sceptics in these threads- that article provides plenty of ammunition for the sceptic side of the debate and a lot of it strikes me as being reasonably well-founded.

[weather eater]

They are, but underplay their significance due to their misguided ( blinkered ) views!

Sorry pass that one past me again, what all of them or just selected ones that don't agree with you. lets be clear here, climate scientists and paleoclimatologists are working on both AGW and natural cycles, computers have been used to study both future and past climate. You cannot have it both ways either the analysis’s of past and future climate by climate models is deeply flawed or it is not, if the models are flawed then neither argument has any validity and all that is being expressed on these pages is opinions not facts and if the models are not deeply flawed then both natural cycles and AGW are at play. I rather think this is what most of the experts in this field believe and have indeed factored in natural variations into their analysis.

personally I find it hard to take seriously somebody who describes professional scientists who have spent years trying to make head or tale of a very complex natural system as misguided and blinkered because their professional view differs from his own amateur one.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I agree with what you say except for that bit at the end. I don't think I've ever said that the pro-AGW side consists entirely (or even largely) of well reasoned arguments, the point was specifically relating to this thread where some (not all) on the "anti" side have gone bonkers- though I take your point about the continued "submission" to the IPCC (and incidentally having read the literature review from the Report, I do think the conclusions they reach are a bit strong given the evidence behind them).

Still disappointed to see so little discussion on your previous link by the sceptics in these threads- that article provides plenty of ammunition for the sceptic side of the debate and a lot of it strikes me as being reasonably well-founded.

Funny how you agree with someone else saying pretty much the same thing as me, and you largely agree with them - but in my case I am allegedly point scoring and giving circular reasoning! I wish to do neither . The problem and frustration is getting sidelined with continually fielding and correcting misrepresentations which in turn kick off more circular postings.

The 'ammunition' you refer to has been noted awhile believe it or not, and the sort of response you would like from sceptics has been available from me in recent weeks. Repeated posts about feedbacks and logical order costings in terms of weightings of feedbacks. At least to the best of my current ability. Not the best I'm afraid but I am not a climatologist expert. It will have to do.

The trouble is, if you are blinded by preconceived ideas about what you think I am saying in terms of alleged circular posting, you are not actually reading instead what I am really trying to say. There is too much fad with the strawman catchphrase of the month - the more that this is batted to and fro across the divide, the more it encourages the same. No smoke without fire.

Edited April 16, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Gowon]

A very NATURAL complex system indeed. Now that everything has begun to slow down i.e. Ice melt, temperature rise, hurricane activity etc etc, you're telling us that natural variations were always included in Al Gore and Hansen's computer models, that sounds like a get out clause to me. Personally i find that, with the evidence that CO2 follows temperature , should tell you all you need to know.

[osmposm]

.....August 2007 seems a long,long time away now and things have moved on. They're just as much fun on the whole,but no longer educational. All I hear is unrelenting rubbish from the you-know-whos and blatantly outrageous and ridiculous claims about the validity of AGW which even a switched on five year-old could see through. And I'd have thought you'd have twigged by now that I am animal lover,Ossie. No wonder you're so slow on the uptake re AGW! That last comment was totally unwarranted,unnecessary and truth be told I am (rarely) hurt and offended that you could stoop so low. I thought better,much better of you as you know from private exchanges. Why don't you contribute something worthwhile to these threads (though I'm aware you consider my input to be anything but...) instead of seeing almost everything I say as an opportunity to psychoanalyse me and reach all the wrong conclusions?

As far as I know, Barrie, I've never tried to analyse you on here. My post was a pure reaction to your own proud announcement that all you do on here now is to enjoy winding people up. You said it, not me - I, too, thought better of you from our private exchange. The point of mentioning badger-baiting was of course not to suggest seriously that you did it, but to suggest that your self-professed enjoyment of continually baiting people with whom you disagree - IMHO to the detriment of the atmosphere in the forum - is a pretty unpleasant and unproductive activity too.

I seldom post on here nowadays partly because I find the personal, mocking attacks like yours upsetting; and partly because I, at least, have become aware that my poor knowledge and understanding of the complex science generally disqualifies me from sensible comment. I personally think there is no point in posting if you don't have something useful to say. Instead I listen and I try to learn - from BOTH sides. I occasionally post when I see a bad logical flaw or palpable untruth in an argument, or when I get too exasperated by personal vitriol from either side. I also sometimes contest the absolute conviction from a few people on your side that anyone who believes in any aspect or degree of AGW must de facto be corrupt or an utter idiot. You consistently express both opinions: which is it that you think I am, exactly? And Peter, and TWS, and Dev, and WE and all the others? And what qualifies you to judge? Are you so much cleverer and more honest than them? All I have ever wanted from you is a recognition that many good and intelligent people sincerely hold a view different to yours. They may turn out to be wrong, but please have the decency to accept that they honestly believe they are right.

As some have rightly pointed out,what I post these days mostly consist of ridicule and jest. That's where we're at.

No, it's where you're at. I'd rather, as I've said, that unless you've something informative to say you didn't bother. All it does is crank up the tension - why do it?

I couldn't care less if I'm wrong or right when it comes down to it. The nub is... I know I'm right .

Precisely the opposite, in fact, of those I prefer to listen to. On an important issue like this they care a great deal about whether they are wrong or right....but have the humility to recognise they may be wrong.

Edited April 16, 2009 by osmposm

[laserguy]

...........

Guess we'll leave it at that then before slapped wrists have to be administered. Things could get very messy.

Where's GW,anyone know? I mean Gray Wolf,not global warming. Hope he's well and puts an appearance in soon.

[Methuselah]

Condascending answers get you nowhere ( so I've been told ).

I have a honours degree in common sense, and thinking for myself. Something you drones should try!!!!

Evidence of absinth??? :lol:

[Solar Cycles]

1. Apart from the evidence I've just given, and what earlier thread are you talking about?

2. Actually, I'm the one rolling around the floor laughing at that one. First you say that climate models can't be used as an argument for AGW because we can't determine their accuracy. Then you say that they're as accurate as the GFS is at T+384! Er, they can't both be true!

3. I am not "assuming" anything, just making the point that there are many other ways in which humans could be having a warming impact on the climate. Attacking a weakened version of the argument, rather than the argument itself- not a very persuasive tactic at the best of times.

4. See above!

5. or time for some of the sceptics to stop saying "AGW is a myth because AGW is a myth and I'm entitled to my opinions so you've got to let me have my opinions but nobody else is allowed to have a different opinion because I'm right and they're wrong and that's also my opinion, so I'm right!"

Jumping to conclusions TWS, I haven't said I don't believe in AGW have I ? I believe the impact on C02 is way over estimated, and as for climate models, show me one instance where they have got it right. They are continually having to be adjusted, due to them being way off the mark to start with. Like I state Junk in Junk out!