Dear mhaze,

You wrote;

“So looking at the term CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropological Global Warming) I accept the 'GW', am ambivalent about 'A' and reject 'C'. And that's where most sceptics sit.”

A quick trot back to your early posts on the subject in 2007 clearly reveals you were not a sceptic then but rather a full blown, self confessed, denier. You were not only rejecting 'C' but 'A' and 'GW' with such fervent conviction to get to where you are now admittedly takes some courage.

“Actually Demos, after a decade of zero warming and now that we are entering a multi-decade cooling period, it is the so-called denialists who are saying "told you so". Its just that you can't hear us because you're too busy listening to false prophets.”
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 13 December 2007

“The sunspot count for November stands at zero. We are entering a new solar cycle. If it is as intense as predicted then prepare to break out your fur coats (and perhaps a little humble pie). Although I expect that the eco-chondriacs won't miss a beat in a cooling world, but instead move on with nary a breathe to the next 'sky-is-falling' scare.”
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 16 November 2007

You had tempered a little by 2012 but faring not much better in the predictions.

“What do those who were right say about the future? Well they predict a slow decline in temps over the next 20-30 years followed by another jump similar to the 1975-1995 jump followed by a further decline with 2100AD having a similar climate to now. How can they be simply dismissed as tools of Big Oil or whatever?”
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 28 December 2012

Well mate I do recognise your transformation over the years. Admittedly it has been slow but hopefully it continues. It will be interesting when you will be in another 10 years.

Some very interesting quotes, Steele.

I like the one about the lack of sun activity which means the planet should be cooling; there should have been cooling; except, temperature has gone in the opposite direction. The question is what has caused that to happen?

Deniers have generally had to agree that there is global warming; but, they still seek to minimise the science.

This is the kind of data that deniers are not able to discount:

http://atmosphere.copernicus.eu/about-cams

The push for legal action against ExxonMobil continues:

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20102015/bernie-sanders-calls-investigation-justice-department-exxon-climate-change-science

In relation to temperature, there are strong odds that 2015 will be the warmest ever recorded:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/22/science/2015-likely-to-be-hottest-year-ever-recorded.html?emc=edit_tnt_20151021&nlid=38021197&tntemail0=y&_r=1

How is it possible to have a prediction that global temperature will be the highest since recording began, and the sun is at a low point?

ant,

"Watts has been caught out in relation to temperature"

Yes he was 'caught' proving his theory that the US terrestrial weather station system was seriously flawed. Since his revelation, things have somewhat improved.

"Watts was involved with the so called "climategate" allegations"

They weren't allegations. A whistle-blower/hacker code-named FOIA really did release highly embarrassing emails from climate scientists.

"he has been financed by Heartlands which received its revenue from fossil fuel companies. "

He received a VERY SMALL amount of remuneration from Heartland who recieved a VERY SMALL amount of funding from organisations associated with fossil fuels. Of coarse the allegation from the perpetually alarmed is that the funding skews the research. I wonder if they think that people who get funding from the government skew their research to suit what the government wants to hear? Nah, that'd never happen </sarc>.

"When terming respondents as "warmists" is presents a flag saying denier."

Yeah, "deniers" using pejoratives like "warmist" are the worst. :) (I doubt you see the double standard)

Your debate-is-settled survey...
Far from proving the debate is settled these people don't even understand what the debate is. They've proved that most scientists think the earth is warming and man is at least partially to blame. But that's not the real debate. Most of the people you'd laughingly call deniers would agree with those statements. I certainly would.

If they really wanted to find out what was happening they'd go on to ask things like: what percentage of the warming is caused by man, how much do you think the earth will warm in the next 50/100/200 years, what measures, if any, do you think should be taken by government over climate change?

These questions are never asked because, I think, the researchers are scared of the answer. These surveys are used for propaganda not elucidation.

SteeleRedux,

Well it is gratifying that you have chosen to continue your education by referring back to my previous posts. At this rate will have you up to speed in no time flat.

I have changed my views over the years. Back in the mid-1990s I was as convinced that we were headed for disaster as any alarmist is now. My view back then was that nuclear power was the obvious answer. But then I started to get access to other opinions via that newfangled internet and in turn found one or two books providing a view that the MSM were suppressing. The best of these was written by a great Australian named John Daly. So by the 1995 or so, I became increasingly doubtful of the scare and by the mid naughties I was convinced the scare was massively over-blown.

" A quick trot back to your early posts on the subject in 2007 clearly reveals you were not a sceptic then but rather a full blown, self confessed, denier. You were not only rejecting 'C' but 'A' and 'GW' with such fervent conviction..."

I don't see anything in those quotes or indeed anything I wrote back then to support your assertions. I didn't then doubt the long term warming nor man's part in it. But I did and still do think that natural forcings could and will overwhelm the human contribution.

One thing I did get wrong was my views on how the lack of warming would affect the scare. I naively thought back then that the data mattered to the warmists and that a decade or two of non-warming/cooling would cause them to re-evaluate. But isn't the case and now I know that the scare will continue irrespective of the data.

mhaze, something noticeable is that when science matters such as ARM and Copernicus are mentioned you do not tackle the science.

Watts was right according to you in relation to the measure of temperature in the US; definitely not so:

http://scholarsandrogues.com/2010/01/25/us-temp-record-reliable/

Notice how Heartlands gets a mention.

In relation to sea ice, it is not the only time Watts has been shown to be wrong, it is a recent example; it is my understanding that Neven is a climate scientist:

http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2015/06/ocean-circulation-and-arctic-sea-ice-retreat.html

When a contender for the US Presidency (Bernie Sanders) suggests that ExxonMobil need to be investigated it becomes a very serious matter.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20102015/bernie-sanders-calls-investigation-justice-department-exxon-climate-change-science

The methane explosions of pingos on the Yamal Peninsula last year are a big deal in a permafrost area; here is something else to consider:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/10/20/scientists-confirm-fears-that-alaskan-wildfires-could-make-global-warming-worse/

http://www.adn.com/article/20151020/scientists-confirm-fears-alaska-wildfires-could-make-global-warming-worse

http://robertscribbler.com/2015/06/ ...497,000acres burnt in a 24 hour period.

Forty years ago the Amazon was described as the lungs of the planet; we now know it is important, though phytoplankton are also important.

Photos of the Rio Negro a tributary of the Amazon River. Drought has been a feature of the Amazon Basin in the last decade.

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/multimedia/Severe-Drought-in-Brazilian-Amazon-Leaves-Boats-High-and-Dry-20151019-0044.html

Deniers argue against the concept of man created catastrophic climate change; but what does that mean? When can a prefix of catastrophic begin to be used? Hundreds of people have been kill around the globe through flash flooding? Is that where catastrophic begins, as future forecasting suggests there will be no improvements? Infrastructure and agricultural land is damaged during these events.

People in Ethiopia are starving and there are calls for humanitarian aide. Likewise people in the areas of New Guinea do not have enough food. Catastrophic?

Water is barely available in a number of countries, a necessity for life. Glaciers act as water reserves for numerous communities; they are generally regressing. Is it a catastrophe when glaciers die?

Near wet bulb conditions have killed thousands of people in 2015, the direct result of high humidity and temperature. Catastrophic?
A warmer atmosphere carriers more water vapour.
Oklahoma and Texas had been drought stricken, afterwards hit by huge deluges. A double whammy, catastrophic?

If we take the nonsensical view that we are heading for an ice age; Maurice Newman has suggested this; then, the result would be loss of agricultural land and in many areas there would not be an infrastructure to maintain life...would that be catastrophic?

The question is; what does CAGW really mean? When can the concept begin to be used?