Bugsy
Excellent! You've nailed it! An alternative theory is indeed missing. One alternative is the solar magnetic theory which, to my mind, has a lot going for it, but its obviously not finished. This may be due to the fact that there is simply no funding for such research. Scientists of both sides have also broadly agreed that solar magnetic variations can account for all the changes in climate up to a couple of decades ago, then the link breaks down.

But does it break down? If so, are CO2 concentrations the missing piece of that puzzle or do those concentrations simply follow temperatures, rather than drive them? (Global warming scientists have been trying hard to get rid of that one - with insults - but so far it hasn't gone away.)

Given all that, and the rather poor performance of the concensus theory, in all circumstances, are we really going to trust forecasts made using it for decades into the future, particularly when it comes to paying out billions? Doubt it.

You still on about it Mark?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10372#169822

Your post history (pun intended) in that thread gave me a chuckle, thanks.

LOL, I can just see you clutching a Nobel for Physics.

Actually, it's more enlightening (and entertaining) reading all the posts:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10372&page=0

Yes, bonmot, still beating the same drum. Problem is that there is simply no research funds for anything other than greenhouse theory, so the science hasn't moved very much. When last I heard they were running more tests for the cosmic ray-cloud connection, but its slow going.

Repetition may finally drive the point home, however.. we can only home.

You're unbelievable. The answer to your rhetorical questions is yes. Solar irradiance does not explain the currently measured climate forcing. There's been quite a lot of research published in this area since you made up your mind that this was your 'missing link' as it were. Which also seems to be at odds with the idea that there is no funding for such research. Maybe they all worked part-time at the local gas-station.

And yes, CO2 measurements are adequate to explain, and the answer to your (probably rhetorical) question is BOTH. Historically, they both can follow and force, does that confuse you? It sure seems to confuse a lot of people for some reason. The other thing that also appears to confuse is the idea that long-term models can often be far more accurate than short-term.

It's just plain demagoguery to exploit the fact that most people cannot understand the difference between stochastic and deterministic processes and models. It sure aint science.

Where's your alternative theory Mark? Where?

Show me the theory. AGW is not going anywhere until it can be replaced with something else that explains the trends better. Stop throwing stones and show us.

Bugsy,

I would suggest that those sceptical of AGW are not proposing to spend trillions of dollars "fixing" climate change. Therefore, the obligation of providing unchallenged proof rather than theory, models and correlations rests with your mob.

Also, here's a tip - if you guys really want to "fix" climate change by reducing the greenhouse effect, why mess around with CO2 which only contributes about 5% of the greenhouse effect? Why not try to reduce water vapour emissions and get a 20:1 leverage over CO2? Maybe you could call it "water pollution" (ie. not pollution OF water but pollution BY water). You could spend $50B on research to "prove" that it's our fault and then impose a Water Tax to fix it.

If that all sound ridiculous, you might get an insight into how the so-called climate sceptics feel.