Sea Level Rise Will Double Due To Melting Of Antarctica

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I've got to pick you up on that. The difference between weather and climate isn't a quibble. Look back at the archives and you clearly, succinctly and knowledgeably explained and argued for the difference when the pro AGW side of this debate were stating categorically that not only was the hot summer of 2006 proof positive of climate change, but that cold winters were no longer possible here.

You can't have it both ways.

Perhaps you have omitted to look at the correct context that I was speaking from within then Jethro?

I was suggesting that discussing the difference between climate and weather is a red herring (and therefore a side issue quibble) in terms of GWO main analysis that centres, as you do know, around a natural causes analysis for long term climate rather than a short term discussion about what the current weather this winter may suggest in terms of climate variation. Which of course as you well know, that I know, is nothing.

What this winter might mean however, is that whilst it does not in any way confirm global cooling (as much as summer 2006 did not underpin AGW) it might however suggest that that margins have not moved in the way that quite a few continually proposed in terms of the recent decadal warming trend - especially as increasingly speculated in the first decade of this millenium. Over the last few years since joining this board my own stance has been very consistent on this - and hasn't changed since. In fact in terms of my own 'steady as she goes' such a stance has only consolidated further. AGW proponents will point to the amount of warmth that is still in the atmosphere, despite the cold northern hemisphere winter, and suggest that validates underlying AGW forcing - I would point to a big wait and see' in terms of how this warmth is processed in view of a switch in regime to a raft of negative natural and cyclical feedbacks that will take possibly up to several years and more to assert themselves in global stats rather than just global weather events which on their own are insufficient either way to validate any longer term warming or cooling. The positive inter decadal natural and cyclical feedbacks may well have been underestimated as much as the switch to negative one's might be.

So I certainly wasn't trying to 'have it both ways' as you put it. I have never have.

SSS was dismissing reading, or even looking at GWO's book - that is what I was defending David on and was the context from which I was speaking in.

Edited March 3, 2010 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Thundery wintry showers]

This discussion in particular fuelled my strong scepticism of the "Global Weather Oscillations" theory. See the posts from around 10am on 3 May 2007:

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/04/global_weather_oscillations.html

I agree with Jethro on the distinction between weather and climate, and in all fairness NSSC you are ignoring the key point here- David is using the cold weather over certain parts of the globe as evidence to support his assertion that we're in a global cooling phase, and it is flawed in the same way as using the exceptional warmth of July 2006 over north-west Europe as evidence for AGW would be.

Of course it shows that global warming is a long way away from killing off cold snowy winters, but claiming that the AGW community claimed that we couldn't get cold snowy winters any more is guilty of tarring everyone with the same brush as those with the more extreme positions. I may believe in AGW, but I never agreed fully with Stratos Ferric's hypothesis about no more cold winters in the UK, or Ian Brown's "modern winter" theory. Again, you can't have it both ways, it's like saying that climate sceptics deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Thundery wintry showers

[sunny starry skies]

Perhaps you have omitted to look at the correct context that I was speaking from within then Jethro?

I was suggesting that discussing the difference between climate and weather is a red herring (and therefore a side issue quibble) in terms of GWO main analysis that centres, as you do know, around a natural causes analysis for long term climate rather than a short term discussion about what the current weather this winter may suggest in terms of climate variation. Which of course as you well know, that I know, is nothing.

So I wasn't trying to 'have it both ways' as you put it.

SSS was dismissing reading, or even looking at GWO's book - that is what I was defending David on and was the context from which I was speaking in.

I stated that "From the evidence on here, you're struggling with the difference between weather and climate, let alone palaeoclimate, and so no I am not going to read your book."

I am entirely entitled to that opinion, based on the evidence I see presented here, which is evidence of someone who has a very incomplete knowledge of really basic palaeoclimate, weather and climate. Anyone can write a book, but not all books are worth reading. I'd rather base my understanding on somebody demonstrating a knowledge of the basics. I know that NSSC thinks me dismissive of all alternative possibilities for the observed global warming or sea level rise (a good indicator of warming, being due to both increased heat content and to melting of terrestrially-based ice), but I am open to alternative hypotheses, provided they are supported by sound evidence. I get annoyed at those linking cold regional weather to some proposed change to colder global climate, when this is blatantly false. The statement suggesting sea level rise cannot happen in the next 50 or 100 years is also false - just look at the observational data and you will see that this is blatantly incorrent:

Recent sea level is on a steady rapid rise, with only very minor fluctuations:

http://www.cmar.csir...st_last_15.html

Sea level over the last 150 years has been steadily rising, with a distinct accelerating trend (bottom figure):

http://www.cmar.csir...ew_hundred.html

This sea level rise and accelerating trend is in direct contrast to pre-industrial sea level, which had stabilised, following a decelerating trend through the Holocene. Recent (being last 150 years) sea level rise is a dramatic departure from the long-term behaviour (last 3000 years, bottom graph):

http://www.cmar.csir...hist_intro.html

Where's your sudden halting of sea level rise going to come from? Why is sea level rising, and the rate of rise accelerating, in a manner quite unexpected, from a system that had stabilised in the pre-industrial period?

sss

Edited March 3, 2010 by sunny starry skies

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

This discussion in particular fuelled my strong scepticism of the "Global Weather Oscillations" theory. See the posts from around 10am on 3 May 2007:

http://global-warmin...cillations.html

I agree with Jethro on the distinction between weather and climate, and in all fairness NSSC you are ignoring the key point here- David is using the cold weather over certain parts of the globe as evidence to support his assertion that we're in a global cooling phase, and it is flawed in the same way as using the exceptional warmth of July 2006 over north-west Europe as evidence for AGW would be.

Of course it shows that global warming is a long way away from killing off cold snowy winters, but claiming that the AGW community claimed that we couldn't get cold snowy winters any more is guilty of tarring everyone with the same brush as those with the more extreme positions. I may believe in AGW, but I never agreed fully with Stratos Ferric's hypothesis about no more cold winters in the UK, or Ian Brown's "even larger teapot" theory. Again, you can't have it both ways, it's like saying that climate sceptics deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Nope - I would repeat that I am simply defending him in terms of his natural causes analysis and the suggested effects on the climate. Regardless of whether one gives credence to it or not.

I was not /not am not ignoring what either SSS or David said about weather and climate - simply responding to the point that refusing to read someones ideas is not respectfully judging them within the merits of the work they have produced. A side show quibble over weather and climate, even if it is one that David himself was party to, still does not make a full judgement platform for his ideas about the bigger long term picture.

In terms of the AGW communtity at large suggesting that AGW had 'killed off snowy winters' then why any assumption is being made that this is intended to mean it exists just within the confines of 'club net weather' I really don't know.

There has been similar bumken spoken for several years now in various outlets such as gardening programmes, BBC and other televsion documentaries, and even a senior member of the ECMWF discussing on one programme I saw not too long ago the disappearance of high latitude blocking easterlies and northerlies as a consequence of climate change! And no, I am not misinterpreting what was said at all.

So the remit goes a lot further than merely Ian Brown and Stratos Ferric! Not that I am the one who had actually mentioned any names. And anyone else for that matter who might feel they are included (when they probably weren't in the first place)

[Thundery wintry showers]

The remit does indeed go a lot further than Stratos Ferric, Ian Brown and Net-weather as a whole, but it still reperesents only a minority of those who agree to a large extent with AGW. Many politicians like to portray things in black and white and there is a popular party line of "make out that the science is far more settled than it really is, to avoid 'creating unnecessary doubt' among the public", but most of the mainstream scientists do not subscribe to most of the more extreme positions.

So, indeed, it's similar to asserting that sceptics, say, don't accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or deny that the world has warmed at all. After all there are plenty of those people around as well- but again they are very much in the minority.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I will reserve my own judgement in terms of where mainstream confidence in the science lies - or more accurately especially, where it might lie in the future.

I believe for reasons often given that such apparent mainstream opinion risks being very premature and subject to change over the coming years. It might well take time but in my view it will happen as more speak out with differeing views. I do believe that there are some who already are harbouring different views but have yet to speak out. Maybe they need further research to verify in order for this to happen?

The science of AGW suggests a long term set of projections, therefore there is plenty of time for at least some of those projections to fall very wide of the mark, and plenty of time for further research to mean that more scientists abandon the AGW ship.

CO2 is indeed a greenhouse gas, otherwise we wouldn't all be here, and crops wouldn't grow etc - but it still depends upon a catalyst of assumed positive feedbacks to be in place to verify progressive long term AGW warming and it also requires accurate and realistic modelling of natural and cyclical forcings and feedbacks. My own reservations lie herein.

I am entirely entitled to that opinion

lol! Wish we all were!

Edited March 3, 2010 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Cycles]

Perhaps some skeptism does come from the timing of my forecast concerning the beginning of the current El Nino. I had originally forecast the strongest El Nino in over 10 years to begin around Christmas 2009 to January 2010. Unfortunately my timing was premature due to the very strong entrenched La Nina. Therefore it took longer to form than usual, and thus instead of forming on the mid-point peak of the PFM cycle (see El Nino secton www.GlobalWeatherCycles.com), it formed 6 months later on the right hand side of the PFM peak. Yes the timing was off a little, but the El Nino did form on the peak of the PFM cycle as predicted, and it is the strongest EL Nino in over 10-years.

As far as global warming or cooling goes, we are at the beginning stage of cooling and thus there is still interaction between the warm and cool cycle, much like early spring weather where you have some days much like spring and some intrustions of left over winter.

It will take several years for warm ocean currents to cool, and of course this years El Nino clouds any issue, with the exception that it is a strong El Nino. And I do agree, El Nino often act different from one to the next.

When I am a presenter at an event, I am often in the middle of the road on many issues. I do not adhere to everything said by the so called Skeptics, and/or AGW. Both sides throw out either exagerated statements, or statements from poor sources.

I welcome opinion, especially if you become familiar with my work, and it is free to read on my web site.

Lastly; I have a 1 hour power point presentation which provides updated graphics and better graphics than my book. During the past few months I have been the guest speaker at many functions, and will continue to spread the truth about carbon dioxide and Natural Cycles of temperature and carbon dioxide.

I would love to present somewhere in Great Britain, Irleand area this summer.

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Perhaps some skeptism does come from the timing of my forecast concerning the beginning of the current El Nino. I had originally forecast the strongest El Nino in over 10 years to begin around Christmas 2009 to January 2010. Unfortunately my timing was premature due to the very strong entrenched La Nina. Therefore it took longer to form than usual, and thus instead of forming on the mid-point peak of the PFM cycle (see El Nino secton www.GlobalWeatherCycles.com), it formed 6 months later on the right hand side of the PFM peak. Yes the timing was off a little, but the El Nino did form on the peak of the PFM cycle as predicted, and it is the strongest EL Nino in over 10-years.

As far as global warming or cooling goes, we are at the beginning stage of cooling and thus there is still interaction between the warm and cool cycle, much like early spring weather where you have some days much like spring and some intrustions of left over winter.

It will take several years for warm ocean currents to cool, and of course this years El Nino clouds any issue, with the exception that it is a strong El Nino. And I do agree, El Nino often act different from one to the next.

When I am a presenter at an event, I am often in the middle of the road on many issues. I do not adhere to everything said by the so called Skeptics, and/or AGW. Both sides throw out either exagerated statements, or statements from poor sources.

I welcome opinion, especially if you become familiar with my work, and it is free to read on my web site.

Lastly; I have a 1 hour power point presentation which provides updated graphics and better graphics than my book. During the past few months I have been the guest speaker at many functions, and will continue to spread the truth about carbon dioxide and Natural Cycles of temperature and carbon dioxide.

I would love to present somewhere in Great Britain, Irleand area this summer.

Hello David

Well I fail to see how the timing and strength of an individual el nino event has anything to do with long term climate change anyway in respect of your own wider analysis.

I agree with your suggestion of perhaps being 'in between cycles'. Hence why I said just now that I continue to adopt a wait and see policy. Unfortunately such a position risks being deemed a cop out when it is intended to be a cautious judgement.

[sunny starry skies]

This discussion in particular fuelled my strong scepticism of the "Global Weather Oscillations" theory. See the posts from around 10am on 3 May 2007:

http://global-warmin...cillations.html

I agree with Jethro on the distinction between weather and climate, and in all fairness NSSC you are ignoring the key point here- David is using the cold weather over certain parts of the globe as evidence to support his assertion that we're in a global cooling phase, and it is flawed in the same way as using the exceptional warmth of July 2006 over north-west Europe as evidence for AGW would be.

Of course it shows that global warming is a long way away from killing off cold snowy winters, but claiming that the AGW community claimed that we couldn't get cold snowy winters any more is guilty of tarring everyone with the same brush as those with the more extreme positions. I may believe in AGW, but I never agreed fully with Stratos Ferric's hypothesis about no more cold winters in the UK, or Ian Brown's "even larger teapot" theory. Again, you can't have it both ways, it's like saying that climate sceptics deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

I would encourage anyone who may be swayed by the predictions of GWO to read that link. You'll find that David utterly fails to provide any information as to the source of his temperature graphs, or his secret 'PFM', therefore preventing anybody from reproducing his work scientifically. Tamino picks him up on the fact that his two temperature records don't even agree with each other, yet no response. Hell, he uses a temperature record he goes on to say he's proven false with his method, which sounds dangerously like circular (quite apart from foolish) reasoning to me.

To quote Tamino:

"He [Dilley] not only made remarkable claims, he contradicts the vast majority of the climate science community. So: I asked him where he got his data. Seems like a pretty simple request to me. After all, if you're going to make remarkable claims about global warming you should have some actual data, right? So far the only answers forthcoming are "world climate report" (a blog with no data) and "Data from present to the year 1000 came from one source and data from present to 5k years ago from another source." WHAT source? Mr. Dilley, do you even have any actual data, or did you just copy somebody else's graphs? Whose graphs? What data?"

I couldn't have said it better myself. He has a 5000year data source that he will not reveal that does not agree with all the published Holocene work. No coherent response from Dilley, except for some blethering about global conspiracies of scientists (truly laughable, given the rewards for good new science), and various further demonstrations of an utter failure to grasp palaeoclimatology.

But the finest comment had to wait till last... David Dilley, of GWO said this [May 7th 2007 at 8:13am]: "But, it is accurate to say that man was not involved in the other 29 episodes, and thus CO2 can be discounted as the global warming agent." How wrong can one person possibly be? The basic fallacy here is so obvious I need not even point it out. And that is yet another reason why I see no reason to waste my time reading his book.

sss

[Cycles]

All sources are referenced at the end of the ebook. Also referenced where data can be found. The 1000 year temperature graph was plotted using known data sets provided to me and referenced in the book, the corresponding 1000 year lunar cycles were calculated by me, the raw data site is referenced in my book.

The temperature graphs beyond 1000 years were not done by GWO, although the analyses of were done by GWO.

All data can be reproduced by anyone willing to take the time to do so. \

Absolutely no false data was included within the book...all referenced sources are available online.

I understand that my research is not mainstream, and thus difficult for most to comprehend. This is why I offered my time to explain any items of concern. What I usually encounter instead is critism by those who will not open their mind to non mainstream thinking, or by those who will not even take the effort to look at my ebook. It is free on my site, absolutely nothing stopping you.

Bashing my work by one individual serves no purpose, unless he is the greatest scientist on earth and knows everything about carbon dioxide, natural cycles, and man's influence. Sorry, I must be talking about GOD.

So if we are here to only bash, and not learn. Then I am out of here.

Regards

David Dilley

[VillagePlank]

Frankly, GWO, whilst your theories are, on the face of it, sound and numerically good, it is an exercise in curve fitting, and not much else.

Sorry.

I have read your e-Book, and it has little substance apart from assertions about cycles that have little or no evidence, apart from numerical data.

Again, sorry mate, but it's a crock of sh....it

Edited March 3, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Again, sorry mate, but it's a crock of sh....it

Whatever you might think, that sort of comment is completely uncalled for and at the risk of sounding prim and proper can you please tone the language down a tad as well

Edited March 3, 2010 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Cycles]

Frankly, GWO, whilst your theories are, on the face of it, sound and numerically good, it is an exercise in curve fitting, and not much else.

Sorry.

I have read your e-Book, and it has little substance apart from assertions about cycles that have little or no evidence, apart from numerical data.

Again, sorry mate, but it's a crock of sh....it

Numerical data fitting climate cycle curves...my, sure sounds and looks like proof. AGW people cannot fit CO2 data to show CO2 is the cause of warming. Actually it is the reverse, temperatures rise first and then CO2 through natural processes.

It is well documented that Milankovich Cycles have a great influence on climate cycles. The lunar cycles are a part of these cycles, so are you ignoring known science?

Regards

David

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

All sources are referenced at the end of the ebook. Also referenced where data can be found. The 1000 year temperature graph was plotted using known data sets provided to me and referenced in the book, the corresponding 1000 year lunar cycles were calculated by me, the raw data site is referenced in my book.

The temperature graphs beyond 1000 years were not done by GWO, although the analyses of were done by GWO.

All data can be reproduced by anyone willing to take the time to do so. \

Absolutely no false data was included within the book...all referenced sources are available online.

I understand that my research is not mainstream, and thus difficult for most to comprehend. This is why I offered my time to explain any items of concern. What I usually encounter instead is critism by those who will not open their mind to non mainstream thinking, or by those who will not even take the effort to look at my ebook. It is free on my site, absolutely nothing stopping you.

Bashing my work by one individual serves no purpose, unless he is the greatest scientist on earth and knows everything about carbon dioxide, natural cycles, and man's influence. Sorry, I must be talking about GOD.

So if we are here to only bash, and not learn. Then I am out of here.

Regards

David Dilley

Nothing changes on here David. Don't let anyone belittle or grind you down

[MR EXTREMES]

As I was saying, El Nino normally brings warmer winters and this instance it did not over the U.S., yes it did in some areas, and that is to be expected.

My main point is that we would expect the northern hemisphere to be warm during an El Nino winter, but over here there has been 3 severe winters in a row. Next winter without an El Nino will be very interesting temperature wise.

But, it is hard to neglect such record snow and cold during the past 2 winters...much of which had not been seen since prior to the warm period of 1997-2008.

Then it comes to the melting of glaciers. Past cycles during the last half million years strongly indicate we are now in a cooling cycle and that rises in sea levels will have to wait until the next warming cycle in about 200 years.

Regards

David

in my opion the basics of any cooling trend would be for the effects to be felt first in north and southern hemispheres then you would see any warming climate effects shift more and more towards the middle of our earth,

in the last two years or more there has been differences in our climate,

although science would tell you different.

im in the opion that this does not seem to be a fluke,

because its also been said there has been no upward trend in global temps since 98 and with the low solar output and shift in pdo and jet stream with other effects happening then im sure that the media is over reacting purely on the basis that if the truth be told then people would have more ground to dispute the money spinning global warming theory.

i strongly feel that natural cycles are key to any warming that has happened including sun cycles and moon cycles.

but we will have to wait and see a couple more years and we will have even more info but i think the massive influx of warming stories will continue and goverments around the world are already profiting from this the scary the story the more people are forced into a corner and the more people on the warming side the more money.

Numerical data fitting climate cycle curves...my, sure sounds and looks like proof. AGW people cannot fit CO2 data to show CO2 is the cause of warming. Actually it is the reverse, temperatures rise first and then CO2 through natural processes.

It is well documented that Milankovich Cycles have a great influence on climate cycles. The lunar cycles are a part of these cycles, so are you ignoring known science?

Regards

David

now this makes lots of sense and people like you are needed to put a none mainstream perspective for people that want to look at a fair sided arguement i respect the work you have done.

and dont take no notice of the warming fanatics that will try and drag you down.

in my opion just one tracked minds.

Edited March 3, 2010 by badboy657

[Thundery wintry showers]

May I suggest that there's a fair bit of confirmation bias in here, along the following lines:

• I don't believe in AGW or at least think it's somewhat overestimated.
  
• GWO's theory supports this, therefore it should be immune to being pulled apart.
  
• In contrast the scientific consensus view doesn't support this, so by all means it should be pulled apart.
  

I don't particularly appreciate those of us with views that deviate from "AGW is definitely being overestimated" as AGW fanatics. Or, for that matter, the gaping wide double standard where those who support the scientific consensus are required to substantiate their views or else be dismissed (and when they do, being dismissed anyway using strawmen, tarring them with the same brush as a few extremist fanatics) and where those who differ aren't required to substantiate their views because "they are entitled to their opinions".

There is a difference between the legal entitlement to an opinion in the sense of freedom of speech and expression, regardless of whether we are right or wrong (sense 1) and the objective validity of an opinion in the sense of it being supported by strong evidence (sense 2). It seems that those who don't believe in AGW, or think it's being overestimated, are supposed to be allowed to get away with saying "sense 1, therefore sense 2", whereas those who do believe in AGW are not only required to fulfil sense 2, but also somehow make the minority of extremists moderate their views or else be lumped together with them.

Edited March 3, 2010 by Thundery wintry showers

[VillagePlank]

Numerical data fitting climate cycle curves...my, sure sounds and looks like proof.

I'm afraid that is a no-no.

Numbers are not enough; indeed, unless there are certainties attached, of which, unless I have missed something, there is no analysis of either the degrees of freedon, nor chi-squared analysis, or even some semblance of it's place in the standard deviation of all climate theories.

I must, therefore, dismiss it thoroughly.

It might be a good idea, but there is no basis to think that it is.

[MR EXTREMES]

Frankly, GWO, whilst your theories are, on the face of it, sound and numerically good, it is an exercise in curve fitting, and not much else.

Sorry.

I have read your e-Book, and it has little substance apart from assertions about cycles that have little or no evidence, apart from numerical data.

Again, sorry mate, but it's a crock of sh....it

sorry deleted what i said not lowering myself to the same level.

as for this topic not intrested anymore had same kind of discussion on the arctic and what was the outcome last year although only 1 year the arctic stayed pretty firm.

but im not intrested in arguing about this so i will pass on this topic.

Edited March 3, 2010 by badboy657

[VillagePlank]

Whatever you might think, that sort of comment is completely uncalled for and at the risk of sounding prim and proper can you please tone the language down a tad as well

Yes, I was being succinct. Sorry for any offence caused.

i think your a idiot for writing this bang out of order everyone is entitled to an opion yours is just an attack.

so maybe you could produce a ebook for us so we can rip your head off.

im dissapointed to read this kind of abuse.

I apologise. See above; and I am working on something.

Nothing changes on here David. Don't let anyone belittle or grind you down

Hope.

A grand idea, but, inevitably, worthless. Unless, you don't seek to find the truth. Harsh? Hell, yes. A terrible outlook on life? Even worse.reality.

[Cycles]

NSSC and Badboy

It is correct that nothing really changes. Here in the states, and in the climate world, those who see their objectives disproven (either political or anthropogenic warming) are the first to counter with ridicule and slander (minds closed instead of trying to learn). Basically this means they are on the run and cannot counter with science, or with sound political ideas.

I know my non mainstream research and thinking will continue to be controversial for several years to come. And this why I have been hitting the road with speaking engagements...many curious minds out there, all of whom want to learn and hear the truth.

Regards

David

[VillagePlank]

Here in the states, and in the climate world, those who see their objectives disproven (either political or anthropogenic warming) are the first to counter with ridicule and slander (minds closed instead of trying to learn). Basically this means they are on the run and cannot counter with science, or with sound political ideas.

You should understand that I don't subscribe to (most of) AGW; and I don't subscribe after months of effort, to your theory either. I have laid out the basis for (any) acceptance above.

So far, you have done nothing apart from assert 'stuff' In fifty years it might well be the case that you are proved right, but today, and fifty years might well be an eon away. And I will be dead by then, so how about a bit of statistical assurance, today?

sorry deleted what i said not lowering myself to the same level.

I must ask - what level is that?

Almost more than most on here I have worked my socks of to understand the lot of this - every god-damn counter query the lot.I find your approach not offensive, but, hell, disheartening.

David, if I am allowed to use his Christian name, has offered no proper statistics. Perhaps, he has them to hand, and if he has, the question must be asked, why this is a book, and not offered for peer review.

Whilst, not appropriate, perhaps, I must therefore conclude that David's conclustions are tantamount to shi......t. Unless someone argues either that this is far to offensive of a challenge to answer, or that the statistical information is out there, somewhere, and I am inherently evil for implying otherwise, and, somehow missing it (Note: this is what you must show when you reply, Tamara)

I don't know the answers, and I don't pretend to.

Edited March 3, 2010 by VillagePlank

[Thundery wintry showers]

I am certainly open to alternative theories- for example there is the leaky integrator discussion- as long as they are founded on some sort of substantiated logic and the authors don't shy away from challenges and questions. There's also been various stuff done in the mainstream scientific literature about solar activity, changes in the NAO/PDO, aerosol forcings etc. These can cast doubt on the IPCC's projections (and can do so either way- some suggest that AGW is being overestimated, others suggest that it's being underestimated, although the mid-point of the projection range has tended to stay much the same, with around 3C of warming suggested over the 21st century. I hope that some day, some sources will bring that figure down to 1C or less, but as yet we're still waiting for them.

What doesn't convince is the hiding behind "the mainstream reject alternative theories so don't shoot us down" type stuff- it is difficult to get accepted in some circles if you differ from the mainstream, but while it's possible to be different and right, it's also possible to be different and wrong...

[VillagePlank]

but im not intrested in arguing about this

OK then - but you had a point ... it doesn't matter to me if someone is arguing the right thing nor the wrong thing. That they are arguing shows, to me, that they are alive!

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

May I suggest that there's a fair bit of confirmation bias in here, along the following lines:

• I don't believe in AGW or at least think it's somewhat overestimated.
• GWO's theory supports this, therefore it should be immune to being pulled apart.
• In contrast the scientific consensus view doesn't support this, so by all means it should be pulled apart.

I don't particularly appreciate those of us with views that deviate from "AGW is definitely being overestimated" as AGW fanatics. Or, for that matter, the gaping wide double standard where those who support the scientific consensus are required to substantiate their views or else be dismissed (and when they do, being dismissed anyway using strawmen, tarring them with the same brush as a few extremist fanatics) and where those who differ aren't required to substantiate their views because "they are entitled to their opinions". Or more accurately, we are entitled to our opinions but only as long as we think that AGW is being overestimated or doesn't exist.

I give up. I really do.

[VillagePlank]

I give up. I really do.

You should not give up.