ken and jeddigirl .. so you feel insulted .. toughen up, you have no problem calling skeptics deniers, I find that insulting.

again ken, you need to look at what was said, first you said "satellite data is showing accelerating melting of major icesheets in Greenland and Antarctica - faster than modelling had indicated", and now you say "Sorry to inform you that every summer the coastal fringes are subject to melting ..."

I consider my point justified, that I called you on exaggeration and now you have admitted it and modified your statement, thanks.

ken "I note that you didn't correct JonJ for example, for talking about sea ice", again I was referring to scientists, I'm not a scientist and have no place correcting someone. I'm the CEO of an international organization, with a side interest in truth and have this thing about alarmist prophesies, wannabe prophets and bullies.

I think "climate scientology/astrology" sites is quite accurate and attention grabbing, makes you think about what you are reading on these sites as it is groomed to be "messaging" on the particular information. The climate astrology point is that similar to personal astrology (which is not science of course) is that the predictions are so vague that most anything can be interpreted from them, which is pretty well the same as alarmist AGW believers messaging, isn't it.

Perhaps this might make you more aware of how such behavior and the insulting practice of calling skeptics "deniers", looks from the other side .. it was all fun and a giggle when you lot are insulting someone else isn't it?

jeddigirl .. being all bossy again, does it ever work? Do you find yourself in this position frequently? btw referring to the AGW believer site realclimate is expected from climate astrologers, I'm sure you find all your answers there - me I find it to be an extremely biased site which prepares information carefully for consumption by its followers, like yourself.

Amicus

I assume that your reference to "jedigirl" is to me. I can only construe your attempt at wit as sexist. In this context, why use the suffix "-girl" if not to assume that it is denigrating? My nickname is intended to be a tongue-in-cheek play on my initials, perhaps with a nod to ideals, but recognising that there is a dark side as well. I note with interest that in Wiktionary, "amicus" can mean friendly.

Your admissions "I'm not a scientist" and "I'm the CEO of an international organization, with a side interest in truth" are most telling. In my case, I trained as a scientist, with a central interest in the truth. I wonder if you apply the same style of discourse to your international clients as you do to other OLO-ers with whom you disagree.

And with regard to RealClimate.org- so you think, as a non-scientist, that you could demonstrate where the it "prepares information carefully for consumption by its followers" and the average of several hundred international posts that it receives for each article. They have a guiding principle of strictly no abuse, but there is a wide range of views, generally trying to be helpful.

I understand that GrahamY is fairly relaxed about the word "denier". On reflection, I prefer to not use it now because, although it simply means someone who reflexively denies some particular thing, it still has connotations that go well beyond that definition. I prefer to preserve the word "sceptic" for its more technical definition of "someone undecided as to what is true and enquires after facts", and apply the word "cynic", where appropriate, as "a person whose outlook is scornfully negative." Its pejorative Athenian etymology derives from "dog", which is unfair, as most dogs that I know are very amicable.

The most important point here is that ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland are accelerating. Those are where the greatest sea level rise will come from and the author of the 'closed minds' article wants us to believe uncertainties about sea level rise make it more likely the rise will be smaller and slower, not greater and faster. Recent satellite data gives good reason to be alarmed that it will be the latter. The rest of the article is no better; uncertainty does not make it more likely the impacts of climate change are reduced. He implies that CO2 sinks will absorb more than expected but there's no reason to believe that - they could end up absorbing less. And of course he fails to even mention ocean acidification in relation to ongoing absorbtion by the largest of all CO2 sinks.