Jeez you actually go to the trouble to point that out?

You want to argue about mousenuts?

Since you've decided to bring it up, what happened to your "landslide of historic proportions" ?

Was that or was it not a wild exaggeration? Or just a delusion?

On reading .. No, you're wrong, I actually learn a lot by not reading hysterical exaggerated drama.

When the BS detector goes off, I move on to something with more class and quality in the work, there's a lot out there, why waste effort?

I'm pretty sure I would learn very little from continued reading of your material, I'm perceptive that way about Bullshyte.

I didn't start with any prejudices Phil, but you certainly convince people you have them.

A good article, Philip, but sadly, probably an exercise in futility as far as these pages are concerned.
People around here 'knows what they knows'. You might have thrown in some mention of how particulate matter (largely sulphates) in the upper atmosphere causing global dimming have actually lessened the warming affects of CO2 and methane etc; yet still the temperature goes up.
Might I direct your attention to a recent article in New Scientist?
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627606.100-living-in-denial-why-sensible-people-reject-the-truth.html
Very illuminating.

Grim, those posting invective and half-truths aren't going to be convinced but there are readers who understand the difference between reasoned debate and insult; I hope they'll check the evidence for themselves.

Thanks for the pointer to the New Scientist article. I have had direct experience of dealing with tobacco and HIV denial, and commonality between these various denial movements is obvious (http://opinion-nation.blogspot.com/2008/06/sound-science-and-climate-change-or.html). They try to discredit the mainstream by exploiting ignorance of the public about the statistical nature of real-world scientific evidence, claim that there is a viable alternative theory without producing solid evidence to back it, repeat discredited claims in the hope of harvesting new innocents and generally create the impression that there is a vigorous scientific debate when their side of the argument is based on belief rather than rigorous assessment of the evidence. And accuse the other side of the flaws in their own argument.

The problem in general with taking on this sort of debate is you can't win: ignore the bogus claims and they go unchallenged; take them on and you reinforce the impression that there's no agreement among scientists (never mind that those shouting the loudest aren't doing the science). Media like The Australian have promoted a kind of post-modern science where there is no objective evidence and point of view is all that counts. I've seen blogs promoting the development of "conservative" or "right-wing" science. Ideological bending of science isn't purely a creation of the Right – I wonder how those attacking climate scientists relate to the Soviet Union's 1948 official declaration of genetics as "a bourgeois pseudoscience" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism). Extremist ideologies converge in practical application even if they start from a different point. Unfortunately the laws of physics don't subscribe to viewpoint; if the theory says adding CO_2 to the atmosphere should cause warming, it will do so independent our politics.

The best I can do is to point readers to direct data sources so they can see for themselves that the contrary argument lacks substance. For those willing to be conned, there's not much I can do.

I am a skeptic, insofar as I do not believe that our activities have "the extent" of the impact on the ongoing cycle of ice ages that some have suggested. We are inexorably moving into the downside of the cycle, we may have had some impact on that, but the cycle has been around a lot longer than Homo Sapiens Sapiens (eg http://www.andaman.org/BOOK/originals/Weber-Toba/ch5_bottleneck/textr5.htm).

The human race, as it exists now, has limited genetic diversity due to a volcanic winter, that should help people understand the issue (http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_articles/india_deforested_73000yearold_toba_eruption_study_says). A heretical thought, which is slowly gaining credence, is that while the origin "may" have been Africa, the oldest "recent" trace of modern humans is in Australia (ie. the Southern Hemisphere). The genetic winter in question was due to the explosion of a "super-volcano" on the rim of fire (http://www.ecotao.com/holism/hu_sap.htm), and the current cycle of volcanic and seismic activity fits well with the known record (archeological), that there is about a 400 year cycle, and we are now in it.

Volcanic & seismic activity has increased, the severity of Northern Hemisphere winters has also increased. The severity of fires in the Southern Hemisphere have increased, so too the amount of smoke. The combination of smoke, ash and other debris (sulfate aerosols) in the upper atmosphere, exceeds by some magnitude anything we have contributed. Nature has always maintained a balance and will continue to do so, those species that cannot adapt are doomed.

qanda

In response to your comment, "Really? Can you please give a link so that we may all see. There could be be a Nobel in it if someone has overturned 100 + years of atmospheric science."
see Timothy Casey's paper entitled "Letting the Hot Air out of the Greenhouse: Historical Falsification of the Greenhouse Effect" at: http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/
The 2007 IPCC Report cited over 18,000 references, but not one contained proof that CO2 emissions are the driver of climate change.

Thanks for that Raycom.

When Timothy Casey, geologist for the last ten years working in the petroleum industry (who, during quiet times runs his software business) publishes his yet to be updated website article in a real recognised journal, I might have another look.

As it stands, all I see is an opinion from a working geologist who has a subsea supervisor's BOP (sic) ticket, a senior first aid ticket and a 4x4 certificate.

Sorry, what he opines does not really enthuse me about his credibility in atmospheric physics/chemistry.

However, he has obviously convinced you that the vast majority of scientists in atmospheric physics/chemistry haven't got a clue what they're talking about. Maybe in his quiet time he could clean his mantle piece too, ready for the Nobel in Physics/Chemistry that you no doubt would nominate him for.

Now, I'm off to bed - good night.