Hasbeen,

I'm not particularly concerned whether ignore me or engage me.....please yourself.

As for your postulations of so-called "climategate - I note you failed to mention the exonerations.

http://profmandia.wordpress.com/2010/04/18/climategate-coverage-unfair-unbalanced/

People might like to have a good read of Prof. Mandia's investigation into media coverage of the accusations compared to media coverage of the exonerations of Michael Mann and Phil Jones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

"On 22 January 2010, the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee announced it would conduct an inquiry into the affair, examining the implications of the disclosure for the integrity of scientific research.....The Science and Technology Select Committee inquiry reported on 31 March 2010 that it had found that "the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact". The emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus that "global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity". The MPs had seen no evidence to support claims that Jones had tampered with data or interfered with the peer-review process"

"The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14 April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit." It found that the CRU's work had been "carried out with integrity" and had used "fair and satisfactory" methods. The CRU was found to be "objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda." Instead, "their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible."

"Speaking at a press conference to announce the report, the panel's chair, Lord Oxburgh, stated that his team had found "absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever" and that "whatever was said in the emails, the basic science seems to have been done fairly and properly."

One could go on...but we only have 350 words per post....

The same truth that finally whacked Muller in the eye does not move the likes of Hasbeen or LEGO. These guys are saying that for some strange reason, right now, as never in at least the last 800,000 years, CO2/Temperature coupling is decoupling.

Really? For what reason? Do tell, and save us all the unnecessary angst.

Poirot.

There was no industrial revolution 2000 years ago when it was warmer than it is today and the Romans were growing grapes in the South of Britain. There was no industrial revolution 1000 years ago when it was warmer than today and Erich the Red discovered a "Greenland" which today is covered in ice and glaciers.

Newspapers have reported that Earth's temperatures have not risen in 17 years and there is a deafening silence from the climate change advocates about that. So too, is the deafening silence from the climate change believers about the recently reported fact that Antarctic sea ice has reached its largest recorded extent. Until your friends can explain how the Earth does not seem to be warming and it even seems to be cooling, then whatever the say I will take with a grain of salt.

Scientists have been found to be wrong in their doomsday predictions too many times for any sensible person to get their knickers in a knot over another doomsday scare. The public is getting more and more sceptical of climate change because your "scientist" friends seem more prone to making wild claims which are the public regard as potty than actually addressing the questions which the sceptical public wants answered.

LEGO,,

You're a veritable climate myth compendium.

Something like this one from Skeptical Science (it's okay to click - my Norton gives it a green tick!)

http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

So, if we examine your points: (most of which are covered in SKS's list of popular "skeptic" arguments - there's 174 listed here by popularity, and a counter argument is provided for each)

No. 39 covers your Greenland point.

No. 5 covers "It's cooling".

No. 14 covers "we're heading into an ice age".

No's. 9 and 51 cover "It hasn't warmed for 14/15/16/17 years (take yer pick)

I'll chuck in No. 153 to cover your reference to other epochs when it was warmer...

Can't find anything on Romans and grapes there, but found this on Real Climate (Norton says that's safe too!)

I'd study that SkS list closely - one can never have too many "skeptic" arguments to scatter about on forums.

Thank you for that link, Poirot. (I normally won't click on links, but I made an exception to you)

I liked this one.

"By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming."

How about in thirty years time we get another one like...?

"By 2020 the predictions about global warming had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of Earths temperatures were stable."

If they admit that they got it wrong before.......(finish the sentence).

Much of the 'debate' here simply highlights the idea us humans think we are very smart and knowledgeable when in reality we are mostly insignificant. It is the politics rather than science of climate change posing the risk. Political power continues to use any arguments available to plug into public sentiment and sell their brand as the better option. A half decent option would suit me. Pity there are none.