Well people, here we are some eight pages later and........... whenever the subject of Global warming/climate change/climate disruption/weather weirding is posted, a raft of comments, opinion and study ensues.
The majority of comments are, in the main, erudite, passionate and replete with interesting links. I am not a scientist, I don't need to be in order to form an opinion.
My opinion? (for what it is worth)..... The science of weather/climate prediction is far far from settled (as evidenced above),
a computer is a blunt instrument for calculating and predicting the behavior of multiple chaotic systems, not to mention those other chaotic systems we are not even aware of.

The flutter of a butterfly's wings is hardly the exactitude required for trillion dollar expenditures by economies struggling.

Humans and mirriad other creatures can both survive and prosper in environments varying in temperatures from zero to over a hundred degrees.

I feel sure that an average increase of global temperatures by 3 or 4 degrees will be quite manageable. Invoking the 'precautionary' principle without an accompanying cost benefit analysis does not seem to be a logical way to go.

Csteele. great podcast link, started from the beginning and thoroughly enjoying! thanks.

Dear Prompete,

As you are offering an opinion, with the notable addition of '(for what it is worth)', I have little issue with the position you have adopted. I certainly take a different view of course, for instance I know that land temperatures increases exceed sea surface temperatures and that an average global increase of 3 to 4 degrees C will mean much higher than that for significant areas of our land masses.

That being said in this post you are not trying to rewrite the science nor denigrate the scientists involved, you are not calling into question the basic laws of physics, nor trying to use science you may have discredited to then support your case, finally you are not calling AGW a giant conspiracy or fraud.

All in all a quite substantial departure from the tone adopted by many posting here.

As to the podcasts I'm glad to hear you are enjoying them. I found the Hannibal episodes especially absorbing.

It is difficult for me to see this item you have raised as other than an attempt at distraction, csteele.

Nitpicking on matters of no significance is a favourite fraudbacker tactic. It is a shame that you have slipped into apparently using it.

The article to which you refer says that the event happens every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is on time.

The important issue is the lack of any scientific basis for the assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on global climate. Until that is established, there is nothing to discuss.

An ice melt every 150 years, which is replaced by more ice, is a puerile point to raise.

good to see the warmist keeping their 'faith ' alive. Thankfully most have woken up to the scam despite the billions wasted. History is already showing as it did with the coolest of the 1970's that enough time, money and effort has been wasted on this fraud which only the gullible hold on to.

Listen up, folks...runner the climate scientist offers his wisdom - again.

Ah what a treat, the fundamentalist twins posting one after the other.

Well Leo Lane, I had kind of given up writing you replies of any length as they were sure to fall on deaf ears, but in honour of this auspicious occasion I feel it is the least I can do.

You referred to the piece written by our retired geologist as “a great article”.

I repeat what he said when referring specifically to the Greenland and Antarctica icesheets;

“the deep ice cores show a succession of annual layers of snow accumulation back to 760,000 years. In all that time there has been no melting at the surface, despite times when the temperature was higher than that of today.”

So we have two options here, the first is to take him at his word as a scientist and therefore conclude this year's melting of 97% of the Greenland icecap was something that had not occurred for the past 760,000 years and if that isn't enough to be a scary proposition i'm not sure what is. Or alternatively we can take the word of Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist who says "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,".

Simple, either the surface melts sometimes or it never does.

Unfortunately if we take Ms Koeing's word then we have to conclude of Professor doesn't really know what he is talking about. Which is okay as he is a retired soil scientist. Ms Koening on the other hand works for the same department of NASA as James Hansen and is an award winning glaciologist.

I would always prefer going where the science is. Which one are you going to back Leo?

I'm actually quite taken with the irony of this. The Prof's article becomes an 'alarmist' tract because of the Greenland melting. All good stuff.