Certainly at the moment the consensus is that industrial emissions are changing climate, so both sides of politics and many people who know little of the issue would follow that consensus to formulate varying policies.

Its also far from surprising that people with scientific training and interested in conservation of resources.

However, if Dr Chapman wanted to take the matter a little further he could ask uncomfortable questions such as what sort of forecasting record does the climate consensus have? Is back testing (matching of model output to past results) for the past few decades really a sufficient base for strong conclusions? He might also ask whether there is any overall, satisfactory theory of climate that ties togther concepts such as Milankovitch cycles (supposed explanation for the ice age cycle of the past million years) with previous ice age and hothouse eras of earth.

Perhaps he might care to look at the way climate models are run and how they have to be run repeatedly with different conditions, each run being adjusted periodically. He might also ask about the assumptions underlying these models.

He might well be horrified at the results of his questions.

>>Any scientific basis for you thinking it's a dodgy theory<<

Yes.

Cheers,

Tony

What is your scientific basis Tony?

Simply saying 'yes' does not back up your argument with any substance...in fact it gives the impression that you are either not capable of explaining your opinion, or you are arrogant enough to think that you don;t need to.

"What is your scientific basis Tony?"

Tony does not have to provide a basis; he is not asserting that CO2 emissions are causing AGW or catastrophic AGW, or whatever fanciful name they give to this non-existent 'problem'.

People who claim AGW is real have the onus of proof; they have failed to fulfil that onus.

But just for the record; the Tropical HotSpot is an essential requirement for AGW to exist; all the models have predicted one but it has failed to appear.

A scientifically valid reason for the THS's failure to materialise, as opposed to the unscientific reasons for it to appear, is explained by researcher William Gibson:

"Yes, I am pretty sure the “hot spot” is an aberration of the climate models in that they do not handle the non-equilibrium thermodynamics correctly. I think the models do not properly take into account the fact that the latent heat of condensation is dispersed both as heat and PV work. Thus, where the “hot spot” is supposed to be, there is still much convection (PV work and mass transfer) going on which doesn’t show up as temperature. The actual thermodynamic behavior within the troposphere is not just a heat transfer mechanism, but a combined heat and mass transfer phenomena. The models’ parameterization of the Navier-Stokes equations may not do this properly (if the models use Navier-Stokes at all?)"

http://tinyurl.com/7j8m333

The planet is heating up.

Now what are you going to do?

cc

"The planet is heating up.

Now what are you going to do?"

How about poking fun at your ludicrous attempt to put forward an out-of-date story from a notoriously biased mass media source as actual evidence of anything whatsoever?

At least, that's what I'M going to do.