"Even with basic primary school understanding of the melting point of ice and some knowledge of Anarctica you wouldn't even need to consult someone nor look at graphs. I suggest you start using plain old commonsense." Keiran

Errr....commonsense about what Keiran? I've not commented on Anarctica - not here or anywhere else! Delusions?

Nevertheless Keiran let's have your "expert" opinion on the glacier ice melts in other parts of the planet and your hypothesis on the cause of the ice melts please.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/mar/16/glaciers.climatechange

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/glacier-ice-loss-at-record-levels-796623.html

Yes Q&A, Greenhouse is one of my hobby horses, because it is where the shonks are in a feeding frenzy. I'm a typical journalist - interested in the cover-ups and the deceptions. I'm appalled at the way science is being prostituted, generally, but not always, in the alarmist direction.

But I like to think that I look at the arguments and deal with them on their own terms. And I think I understand the arguments and the underlying science well-enough not to get caught up in the mindless and spurious arguments that "my peer review is better than yours".

In fact, the last argument is a pretty sure marker of someone who is just cheer leading, and who is therefore by definition, not motivated by a deep or genuine interest in the truth of the matter. The climate argument is full of such people who have a religious conviction that they are right and just want us to fall in line with their sacred texts.

We wouldn't accept these types of arguments from politicians, and we shouldn't accept them from scientists. But you're free to think what you want. Me expressing a particular point of view doesn't change that. And the fact that I run this site where you have freedom to post pretty well makes a nonsense out of your insinuation that I'm trying to manipulate things.

Fair enough Graham. I am also very disturbed at the way the GW ‘alarmists’ jump on their ‘hobby-horse’ … just as much as I am disturbed by ‘denialists’ of GW and their ‘hobby-horse’.

I don’t have issue with genuine sceptics (in the scientific sense). Indeed, scepticism is healthy for debate and contributes to the process of scientific enquiry; it is the antithesis of science to do or think otherwise.

Unfortunately, most people adopt a stance not based on genuine science, but on the political or social ideology of some affected ‘interest’ group that distort or misrepresent the science for their own ends. This is why it is disingenuous to denounce the peer review process as “spurious”. Following that logic to its conclusion, anyone could say anything about the theory of climate science, but because one says so does not make it so.

I agree; “the climate argument is full of such people who have a religious conviction that they are right and just want us to fall in line with their sacred texts” … but surely you must agree it goes both ways. There are extremists on both sides of the fence.

It is somewhat disturbing that you (as a journalist) are quite prepared to ‘jump and thump’ (quite rightly I believe) the ‘alarmists’ when they make outrageous claims, but don’t do the same thing when the ‘denialists’ (used in the vernacular) make their outrageous claims.
Your silence is conspicuous and speaks volumes Graham ... “a pretty sure marker of someone who is just cheer leading, and who is therefore by definition, not motivated by a deep or genuine interest in the truth of the matter” … it cuts both ways.

Water vapour is by far the most abundant GHG, and it has both negative and positive feedbacks associated with it.

So, I would like to ask again, “You should give us the reasons – at least the links to the published research papers or sources that make it so interesting for you.” I am genuinely interested in what you have to say – believe it or not.

Dickie,

Speaking of the cold south, try the British Antarctic Survey home page, or:

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/our_research/topics/climate_change.php

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/current_programmes/grades/qwad/index.php

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/current_programmes/index.php

As to Roy Spencer, he is a genuine sceptic and I will look at what he says with reason. However, it is easy to see why some would question his motives:

http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1397

The Heartland Institute’s recent gathering was interesting, a pity it wasn’t covered as widely as they had anticipated it would – given that 19 climate scientists and the Czech President Klaus were their for the photo-shoot.

Keiran

Following up from another thread, I will point beginners to Wikipedia,

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

It’s a good place for people to get a general overview. Notwithstanding, I typically look at more technical stuff that would be complicated or confusing for the layperson.

You may find an interest here:

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/current_programmes/sec.php

Two weeks ago I met an astrophysicist that has been working with the Australian Antarctic Division, his speciality; your ‘sunny-boy’ and galactic cosmic rays. What he has to say would disappoint you, but hey … what would he know?

Jennifer

No matter how you try to spin it, there is optimism in tackling the challenges of global warming (climate change as Bush prefers). As I said to Graham, there are extremists on both sides that need to pull their collective heads in – it’s not about the science, it’s more to do with political or social ideology.

Q&A the research is reported in the article. Maybe Jennifer can give us a link to the paper where he publishes his findings. I'm not asserting that his position is correct, I'm stating that I'm interested in this fact, and that it is the major point of the article. I don't need to give a reference for it, the article is the reference.

If you go to Jennifer's blog you will find a long discussion thread on the issue, and there seems to have been some significant shifting by AGW alarmists there in the light of it.

If Spencer's research is robust then all the current modelling is nonsense, and that makes a huge difference to the issue. I don't need references to say this, just the ability to apply logic to a number of propositions.

Why am I more interested in alarmists than skeptics. Well, the alarmists are running the show, and if you're running the show you cop more attention that if you're not. And no, I don't have a citation for that either, but just do a content anlaysis of today's news and tell me who gets more coverage, government or opposition. Plus the real skeptical drivel wouldn't make it through to OLO.

Oh, and I never argue on the basis of authority, so I'mn not sure what you mean by quoting me on cheerleading. It doesn't apply to me.

Dickie, i don't put myself up as an "expert" and am just a common old nobody. Even with a common basic primary school understanding of climate and weather events you would expect some glacial melts in the natural warming of the twentieth century. Just seems that the issue of glacial retreat is being sensationalised by a few "experts" ......i.e. Alarmist AGW "experts" using wrong assumptions.

As an example, on-the-spot research and with nearly 200 years of data indicates that nothing abnormal has been found in any of the Himalyan glaciers. In New Zealand all 48 glaciers in the Southern Alps have grown during the past year and in Norway many glaciers are growing at record pace. You can go elsewhere and see similar. Most people it seems, know very little about the natural world and how it works. This just points to how a lack of knowledge is easily exploited and of course with the Dickies of this world, when coupled with fear, it makes for an ever more powerful manipulative instrument. i.e. Sucker bait

The point here is that glacial melts do not prove AGW at all. In addition, annual melts of Arctic sea ice will not change sea level because it is in the water anyway and incidentally this winter all the ice is back with expansion.