Curmudgeon you need to understand 'forcing' and 'logarithmic function and impact', arithmetic might be handy for graphs but not much use when understanding and interpreting the physics and chemistry side of climate and weather data.

As a teenager, excess certainly followed collapse. History taught me not to get mired in nostalgic analogies.

What people can do ourselves to conserve resources and to stop pollution and emissions is still a topic we avoid thinking about. We can talk about everything else.

Geoff of Perth, no broadside mate, just a mild little shot across your bow.

No less an institution than the IPCC has stated in a very recent release, that no connection can be found between CO2, & extreme weather. Could it be that they hope to gain some legitimacy by telling the truth occasionally. Perhaps they are actually hoping we will die of shock.

There are a number of recent papers discussing the fact that there has been less extreme weather in the last 15 years than previously.

These papers don't necessarily agree that this argues against global warming however. Some other research suggests that a warmer earth would have less difference in temperatures between the at the equator & the polls, which will mean less energy to generate extreme storms.

Very confusing, but at least it is genuine science not the which doctor stuff that comes from the East Anglia mob, & their mates.

Geoff of Perth

no its you who need to look at the forecasts in the light of commensense.. the models are forecasting massive increases on anything we have seen to date with no real justification. If any of the forcings are as important as they seem to think they are, then why haven't we seen these effects to date? That is, why have the increases to date been so much smaller than the projections? What is going to change?

You should concentrate on answering those questions rather than sneer at those who raise them.

Some people here over simplify, to obfuscate – no surprise there.

Atmospheric physicist

Meteorologist

Glaciologist

Climatologist

Biogeochemist

Paleoclimatologist

Geologist

Hydrologist

Oceanographer

Etc. – all ‘climate scientists’

Some more so than others, depending what they work/research.

At the end of the day ‘climate science’ is assessed on the ‘weight of evidence’ (not judged as in a court of law) - albeit only one counter argument can turn the ‘science’ on its head (but it takes years).

It hasn’t, despite the shrill to the contrary.

Moreover, just because someone has ‘googled’ something, or read something, or can do math, or sail a boat, or is a brilliant lawyer or brain surgeon, whatever … doesn’t make that someone expert in any of the ‘climate sciences’, no matter who that someone is.

Furthermore, I for one suspect very much someone who claims to be a ‘climate scientist’ based on minor undergraduate work done decades ago at either a technical college, or university, or who is involved in a political party - no matter what politics they hold true.

Hasbeen, you claim to be a scientist and engineer (so would know about math and probability) - would you please provide links to the "very recent release" by the IPCC you reference so that all readers here can judge the veracity of your claims.

Also, as a fellow scientist, I (and some others) would be interested in the other papers you reference. Hasbeen, with one caveat ... unlike last time, please don't link to your favourite anti-AGW ideological blog-site. The journal/paper/author will do - thanks.

Anthony Cox/cohenite (secretary for the Climate Sceptics Party) - please allow Hasbeen to speak for himself, if he can.