A climatologist is one who studies the climate. Pielke qualifies as does Lindzen, you saying they do not has nout to do with it.

"John Christy was more interesting, as he does seem to be one climatologist that is sceptical of CO2 being the ONLY exclusive fundamental cause"
Well fancy that...have to agree with him there.

"putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air"
There are those old aerosols again...black carbon anyone?

"He is sceptical of severe consequences"
Probably because they are farcical...

"Ultimately, humans are doing climate change"
Never said they weren't...CO2 is just a much smaller player than touted by the IPCC

"Roy Spencer is just agnostic about man made Global Warming."
As I am..

"He has no counter-theory, just questions whether or not we really know yet. "
Bingo!

"I also understand that this can be relatively easily solved by storing carbon in our soils. Watch Catalyst tomorrow night."
I will on my CO2 generating television. As long as I don't have to go back to living in cave. So everybody can stop worrying now...whew....catastrophe avoided!

Here's the real truth on global warming. Never let it be said you were not forewarned and given the facts.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,501145,00.html

Ummmmm, not sure what you are trying to communicate there about the "real truth" about Global Warming.

Alzo, the facts are in, you just don't like them. Boohoo for you. The fact that you are unconvinced and stubborn does not mean that the science is bad. The fact that one climatologist says "I don't think we know" without proposing another mechanism does not do away with the 928 reports that DO know. The fact of previous deep-history Global Warming events with dead oceans and a massive biodiversity die-off does not disappear because of your skepticism. The fact of CO2 build up does not go away, nor the physics of methane and other Global Warming gases.

These are simply established facts, and that one climatologist seems to maintain there might be some other factors to consider does not discount that these factors are being studied and re-studied and re-studied, and all concluding that we are warming the planet.

Agrichar may just be the "Silver Bullet" we need to establish a stable climate and stop catastrophic sea-level rise and ecological destruction. But what if it's marginally more expensive, and needs some form of smallish subsidy to be economically viable? The science is important, because ultimately it will affect policy. People like you standing around endlessly repeating lies and diversions does not help the discussion move forward. (You MUST work for king Coal to be so committed to misrepresenting the state of climate science, and put forward such self-contradictory solar theories).

I propose that until you can come up with a viable alternative theory as to why this is happening, you simply not post here any more. It's boring. We all get the message. You don't accept the science. Good for you. Until you can explain WHY in a coherent, scientific manner you disagree with a successfully proven theory, stop boring us with your obsfucation.

"Ummmmm, not sure what you are trying to communicate there about the 'real truth' about Global Warming."
He is saying we should kill all those damn pollutin' moose. All the cattle, sheep and other ruminants while we're at it. Lets all go vegan!

"Alzo, the facts are in, you just don't like them."
Actually I love facts. The more that come in the less I like the AGW theory, which is not fitting the observed facts. What would it take for you to overturn your "belief" in AGW? How about 928 papers falsifying it? Just wait.

"The fact that you are unconvinced and stubborn does not mean that the science is bad."
No it's not. Using bad or misleading data is bad science eg. Hockeysticks or dodgy temperature adjustments.

"The fact of previous deep-history Global Warming events with dead oceans and a massive biodiversity die-off does not disappear because of your skepticism. The fact of CO2 build up does not go away...blah blah"
Never said they did. I love how you put words in my mouth. Questionable whether CO2 had much to do with them though.
Global methane levels have levelled off and actually may be beginning to decrease. Yes I agree CO2 levels are building up. Does that matter, don't think so. This is your case?

"Agrichar may just be the "Silver Bullet" we need to establish a stable climate"
No such thing as a stable climate, go back to your fairy tales.

"catastrophic sea-level rise and ecological destruction"
The sky is falling....the sky is falling...thanks CL.

"People like you standing around endlessly repeating lies and diversions"
Sorry for being a heretic. Crucify me.

"I propose that until you can come up with a viable alternative theory as to why this is happening, you simply not post here any more."
Propose all you like, you're not my type. I think you'd be better off asking davasb, you guys get on soooo well.
I won't post anymore if you don't. Can't be fairer than that.

"stop boring us"
Is this the royal "us"?

re hot years in 1934 - see:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0823/p02s01-wogi.html?s=hns

"Put another way, the new figures show that 4 of the 10 warmest years in the US occurred during the 1930s, not more recently. This caused a stir among those critical of the push to stem human-induced climate change.

"Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh used reports of the revisions to argue that climate change is a hoax perpetrated by scientists with liberal agendas," reported The Washington Post.

"We have proof of man-made global warming," Limbaugh said on his show…. "The man-made global warming is inside NASA. The man-made global warming is in the scientific community with false data."
Blogger Steve McIntyre, who started the controversy, lives in Canada. His hometown newspaper, The Toronto Star, headlined its story "Red faces at NASA over climate-change blunder."

"They moved pretty fast on this," McIntyre said. "There must have been some long faces."
Still, McIntyre called his finding "a micro-change," and others agree. For one, the reranking didn't affect global records, and 1998 remains tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record, the Los Angeles Times notes, quoting climatologist Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

"The data adjustment changes 'the inconsequential bragging rights for certain years in the U.S.,' he said. But 'global warming is a global issue, and the global numbers show that there is no question that the last five to 10 years have been the hottest period of the last century.' "

Rush Limbaugh - now there's your climate expert.
Google "Rush Limbaugh" for his credentials.

Exactly.

These "storm in a teacup" arguments are nauseating and stupid. "Oh, but, look at America's temperature trends, that's just GOT to throw out the total GLOBAL Warming theory".

Hypothetically, even if the GLOBE was warming in the 1930's (and not just the US, but I am talking about the whole beautiful blue dot here people), then, hypothetically, we'd have another piece of data to consider. CO2 would still be CO2. Methane would still be methane, and nitrous oxide would still be 300 or so times more powerful a Greenhouse Gas than CO2.

The sceptics see ONE little teeny weeny bit of data, and jump up and down like it's the best Christmas present they've ever had. They don't realize the time and effort devoted to studying ALL of these forcings, and that it's usually way, way above their pretty little heads.

Basically, I'm bored of Alzo's lies. He's told some WHOPPERS in his obfuscating time here, trying to quote studies proving CO2's influence as proving Alzo's totally incoherent "Solar delay" theory. Either he's intentionally lying, or his non-theory derives from a "comprehension delay". There's nothing more to see here. I'm moving on.

Bye Alzo, and one moral tale before I leave. The boy who cried wolf... remember, the message is not just that we should not lie. The message is also that there ARE wolves, and that they eat little boys.