Liam, your linked article from the NASA observatory that suposedly debunks the (iris) cooling effect of tropical clouds is a joke. The paper didn't even distinguish between tropical Cumulus clouds and the upper level Cirostratus clouds that actually thin out to release the heat reflected from the heavy Cumulus clouds below.

And if the paper didn't even register that distinction then no amount of clever instrumentation will overcome the problem of GIGO.

Ditto the other links to opinion pieces masquerading as science. Give us a break.

And whats the matter fellas? Spend all your time slandering people, abusing honest questioners as some sort of class enemy and then cry foul when someone dishes it back. Most of you folks read like you haven't had a bowel movement in three weeks.

Mr. Castle, I’m disappointed not to have my questions addressed. You seem willing enough to acknowledge Perseus, who asks no questions of you, or to provide feedback to Liam about your feelings, but I thought you would be more interested in addressing the argument, rather than the arguers.

Perhaps I have misunderstood your intent: is the argument about fundamentalists vs. absolutists, or is it about environmental scepticism (discussing indefinitely the yes-buts and what-if’s of mainstream global climate and economic models) vs. environmental action (such as implementing recommendations of the Stern Report)?

Or is it about something else which I have missed? Perhaps it is time to "photograph the goalposts" as it were. A time exposure will do very nicely.

I note that the first question I put on 3 December lacked the punctuation needed to make it quickly read. restated, it says
(1) Which would you say you are more interested in: the tension between fundamentalism and relativism, or the science and/or economics of climate change?

And, as I said in my December 3 post,
”If you aren’t really interested in global warming, its predicted consequences and recommended mitigation measures, then I'd say skip questions 2-4”
of that post.

While I don’t expect anyone these days to have the necessaries to play David to the Stern Review’s Goliath, I would be curious to know whose sling you or Perseus think has delivered the crippling blow. Any champions in particular?

Has the redoubtable Danish Statistician Bjorn Lomborg had a shot yet? According to Matt Ridley, of Time Magazine, “He just might be the Martin Luther of the environmental movement”
http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/2004/time100/scientists/100lomborg.html

See http://www.lomborg.com/ for more current information - that was 2004

For those further interested in the global warming debate, Liam’s links lead to some excellent background items:

Scientific American (www)
January 02, 2002
Misleading Math about the Earth
Science defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000F3D47-C6D2-1CEB-93F6809EC5880000
and
Scientific American (www)
April 15, 2002
A Response to Lomborg's Rebuttal
By John Rennie
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=00040A72-A95C-1CDA-B4A8809EC588EEDF

And for those wishing to dine on yet meatier fare, there is:
The Stern Review:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/
stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cf

Sirvivor, the fact that you could describe John Rennie's opinion pieces as "excellent" trashes your credibility no end. It is full of straw men, hypothetical crimes of what Blomberg "should have said", outrageous posturing of his own opinion as being that of "science" and the usual attempts at forcing dissent into political pigeon holes, the better to be misunderstood by the punters.

Stern takes all the overstated assumptions that are incorporated in the IPCC emission scenarios and then applies a purely "public service" standard costing to them and, surprise, surprise, the cost is very high.

Furthermore, the guy apparently doesn't understand the simple concept of double entry bookkeeping whereby one records both debits and credits. Stern gathers up all the costs and losses but, curiously can find few gains or benefits.

For example, all of his "costings" assume only modest levels of carbon fertilisation in vegetation. But next time you drive past a highway culvert and see vigorous growth in trees that essentially have no soil, limited capacity to retain soil moisture, steep slope, and limited access to nutrients, then you will get a first hand view of exactly how much increased CO2 can boost plant growth and re-absorb carbon.

And Stern's cyclone costings are a joke. I am currently building a new house on a site that has been in the eye of three cyclones in the past 60 years. The old house that survived those cyclones is still standing but the new house will have even stronger measures to protect it. It cost $190 for bracing ply, $80 worth of threaded bar and $30 worth of metal strapping. But on Stern's European Public Servant costings, there would be little change out of the average annual salary.

It is sick joke on a gullible public.

Johnj - It is not my German! I do not read or speak the language. However, should you care to research this word, you may find that "scheiser" may be an American stuff-up of "scheibe" or "scheisse".

The straightforward English translation is as you advise "S" but there are copious offensive translations and some of the younger Germans express this word as "F".

Since you appear to have a fetish for vulgar words, with your query as to why my psuedonym is "Dickie", I advise there is no intended, crude innuendo in my selection of that name, particularly when it has nothing to do with my gender!

Perhaps you should return to the issue at hand?

Dear Mr Castle,

While you may know who John Rennie is, other readers may not be so aware, so I post this abridged biography. from the (US) School Science and Mathematics Association
http://www.ssma.org/rennie.html

”Biography for
John Rennie
[current] EDITOR IN CHIEF, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
John Rennie is only the seventh editor in chief in the nearly 155-year history of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN magazine. Since his appointment in late 1994, he has been the creative force behind the modernization and reinvigoration of this great publishing institution.”

”Rennie joined the staff of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN as a member of the Board of Editors in 1989, having previously worked as a science writer covering biology, technology and medicine for a variety of publications. He helped to plan and edit several of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN's distinguished single-topic issues, including Mind and Brain (September 1992, the best selling special issue in SA's history) and Life, Death and the Immune System (September 1993, later republished as a book by W. H. Freeman).”

”As editor in chief, Rennie has overseen … Key Technologies for the 21st Century (September 1995) and What You Need to Know About Cancer (September 1996). Both … were nominated for National Magazine Awards …; What You Need to Know About Cancer won for editorial excellence in the Single-Topic Issue category.”

”In addition to his work on the monthly SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN magazine, Rennie has served since 1998 as editor in chief of the quarterly magazine SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN PRESENTS. He has been involved in the launch of Scientific American's web site, www.SciAm.com, and of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN EXPLORATIONS, the family science magazine.”

(snip)

“For several years, Rennie also worked by night as a sketch and improvisational comedian in New York, Boston and college venues. These days his major hobby is the study of karate, in which he holds the rank of nidan (2nd degree black belt).”

And to the best of my knowledge, John Rennie (unlike Bjorn Lomborg) has never been hauled over the coals by the The Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty.
See http://www.lomborg.com/critique.htm for part of the story on that one.

Richard Castles wrote: "Here are a couple of other inconvenient pieces of evidence that you might like to check out, and perhaps horror of horrors,"

I've checked out the facts, so you can keep your red herrings. I prefer to trust the judgementsof thousands of qualified climatologists over your backyard metaphysics. I have a PhD in physics, and I know a fake when I see one.