So sorry, Hasbeen...I have to keep reminding myself how gullible I am.

Btw, talking of hoaxes, scams and conspiracies I'm sure you'll be engrossed by Arjay's latest effort in the general section: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5751

(Where do you buy the book that teaches you to blame human induced challenges on conspiracy?...It's obviously written by an ostrich:)

Poirot,

Hasbeen is right in that people like him are just (anti-science) zealots.

Hasbeen (says it all) is not a real scientist like he claimed to be.

Certainly not like this lot:

http://thiniceclimate.org/blog/details/2658/thin-ice-the-inside-story-of-climate-science

Play the trailer, watch the film.

JKJ I have no idea why I bother responding to your posts, you just don't get it.

As an old Buddhist adage says: If and when everyone is mindlessly stupid, will anyone notice?

In this case you seem to be the most mindlessly stupid of the lot, unfortunately for me I have noticed.

Geoff

Hasbeen,
The Y2K problem was real, but there was minimum problems because
many programmers worked a lot of overtime to convert files and programs.

In my case I had to get a new version and several hundred of us around
the world us had to do the same.
Those that tried to to continue on with the old version
caused problems in our white pages system.

Simple things like sort routines had to be fixed.

It is just plain silly to say that it was not a problem and it did
cost a lot of money to fix.

Poirot
Oh sure, the difference is quite straight forward.. in the other pauses, there was no forecast saying that temperatures would increase..

Now you may be quite right in saying that its a natural pause, or its due to natural factors over-ruling the alleged artificial ones. But the point is an increase was forecast and it didn't happen. So they are revising the theory. In the meantime you can't base policy on it, as it doesn't have a forecasting track record..

Dear Curmudgeon
One problem with most of the analysis of people trying to "disprove" global warming with words in this forum is that most of the people in this group are thinking in time frames that are way too small. I have seen a few graphs etc "proving" one point or other that are based on laughably small time periods eg decades or centuries. We are talking geological time frames here! eg hundreds of millenia.

A second problem is that most of the same people seem to have no grasp of the complexity of the system that the poor old scientists are trying to model. Us humans are still in the infancy of developing climate models and the real system is orders of magnitude more complex than our best model, so although the general trends are very apparent, you can expect errors as you try to get more specific. These errors do not disprove the general trend however.

A third problem for these people is that words are just that. You can appear to win the "argument" in this forum, but real changes ARE happening outside your window, just have a look!