Here are some explanations of why some individuals with no relevant qualifications whatsoever actually believe that they're better informed than professional climatologists.

http://theconversation.com/search?q=psychology+of+climate+change+deniers

Oh, mac!

Lewandowsky?!!

Really?!!

http://wattsupwiththat.com/?s=lewandowsky

Thank you Spindoc and Jon J for appreciating the significance of my simple question, "are the ice caps melting". The only way an interested ,reasonably well informed citizen can make their way against the cacophony of abuse and special pleading is to have in mind a clear distinction between climate change that has been occuring over billions of years , and the current contribution of green house gasses.

Leslie,

I fail to see how the extent of the polar ice caps provides any support for the argument that AGW would be catastrophic, or even that AGW would do more harm than good. After all, there has been no ice at either pole for 75% of the time since multi-cell life began to thrive (some 500 million years ago). And it would take millenia to melt the ice caps. And life thrived when warmer and struggled when colder. And the planet is in a long term cooling phase so anything we do to offset that and reduce the risk of sudden cooling has got to be good, right?

See IPCC AR4 WG1 Figure 6.1: http://accessipcc.com/AR4-WG1-6.html#6-3-1

http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full

Role for Eurasian Arctic shelf sea ice in a secularly varying hemispheric climate signal during the 20th century

Marcia Glaze Wyatt and Judith A. Curry

Abstract: A hypothesized low-frequency climate signal propagating across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of synchronized climate indices was identified in previous analyses of instrumental and proxy data. The tempo of signal propagation is rationalized in terms of the multidecadal component of Atlantic Ocean variability – the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. Through multivariate statistical analysis of an expanded database, we further investigate this hypothesized signal to elucidate propagation dynamics. The Eurasian Arctic Shelf-Sea Region, where sea ice is uniquely exposed to open ocean in the Northern Hemisphere, emerges as a strong contender for generating and sustaining propagation of the hemispheric signal. Ocean-ice-atmosphere coupling spawns a sequence of positive and negative feedbacks that convey persistence and quasi-oscillatory features to the signal. Further stabilizing the system are anomalies of co-varying Pacific-centered atmospheric circulations. Indirectly related to dynamics in the Eurasian Arctic, these anomalies appear to negatively feed back onto the Atlantic‘s freshwater balance. Earth’s rotational rate and other proxies encode traces of this signal as it makes its way across the Northern Hemisphere."

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1950-2#page-1

Peter King,

Glad we got the issue of sea ice sorted, Archimedes will be delighted. Those who have been spruiking it as a cause for rising sea levels must have long wondered how on earth ships float.

Your next gem is a cracker,

<< Greenland is covered with snow and ice and it is melting >>. Really?

Next you will be telling us that the sun warms the oceans which causes water vapor to go up into the sky to form clouds that go around the world dumping rain and snow all over the place which then freezes, melts or finds its way into rivers to go back into the ocean where it came from in the first place?

Nonsense of course, everyone knows that at the top of every river there is a giant fresh water tap!

To your second effort in response to my question, “can you demonstrate that any warming or climate change is outside the natural variability?”

You have failed to provided any answer. (we all knew you couldn’t)

You can use the IPCC’s AR5 report if you wish, you can phone a friend (as many as you like actually) or you can even enlist assistance from your friends on OLO. All you have to do is POINT to empirical evidence, real data, real measurements. No models, forecasts or predictions thanks.

Your links don’t provide any answer, just a string of excuses for the UNIPCC not having any answers, have you actually READ the links you offered?

Don’t answer questions you’re not asked.

Look Peter, I did try to help you, I did say there was no answer in the AR5. Nor in the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). You know that now ‘cos you already looked.

Actually the IPCC’s SPM is no even drafted by scientists, it is done by a panel of who? Yes, you guessed it, Policy Makers. Funny that?

The NIPCC’s SPM on the other hand is written and peer reviewed by scientists, no politics.

Again, “can you demonstrate that any warming or climate change is outside the natural variability?”

Spindoc,

i am surprised, you actually spelt climate variability correctly...you must be using a good spell checker.

For those on this forum spellbound by your wit and superior technical knowledge, please explain the theory of natural variability...is it predicated on Arrhenius’ simple energy balance calculation or perhaps it is covered by Manabe’s one-dimensional radiative-convective models in the 1960s?

Actually fess up, you believe the climate wakes up one morning and thinks, "today I am going to change"; voila variability.

As I am sure you know but continue on the disingenuous path, climate changes due to external forcings. There is endless empirical evidence that CO2 affects the climate; hell your lot usually argue that there was more CO2 in the atmosphere 60 million years ago! kind of irrelevant because mammals weren't around to try and flourish in that environment.

However to return to my primary interest and concern in this forum is that your quoted NIPCC is biased, subject to a massive conflict of interest and virtually every argument in their document has been refuted. rather like Alan Jones "paid for comments" really.

However, feel free to make bizarre comments such as "Actually the IPCC’s SPM is no even drafted by scientists, it is done by a panel of who? Yes, you guessed it, Policy Makers. Funny that?"

Who would have thought that a body charged by the international community would assemble an overview document such that the likes of Tony Abbott might have some chance of comprehension would be assembled by non scientists?

I can see why you would prefer the works of the NIPCC.