All
There are a lot of commenters here that deserve a more robust response from me (thanks for engaging). I'm sorry, I won't be back till the latter half of the 1st week in January - I will respond.

In the mean time, have a happy & safe New Year and best wishes for 2009.

Recently read that 2008 is looking like the coldest in 100 years.

Of course we will be told by the straight faced AGW set that cooling is part of warming. Soon to assert that black is white, good is bad (oops that already happens), liberals are labor (oops again not much diff on AGW), warm is hot, rich is poor, fast is slow etc.

After all the AGWs and Greens know that whoever defines the words has the best chance of winning the debate.

Thanks for listing Professor Carters qualifications, saved me the time. Two were missed: genuine & sincere.

Col

“Alternately, no sane person has presented an incontestable case which irrefutably proves AGW, distinct from any other reason for Global Warming.”

AGW is real Col. How many times does it take for you to understand that science is about probabilities and preponderance of evidence? Just because you don’t understand the science, haven’t done the research, or just don’t want to believe it because of your personal ideological perspective, doesn’t make it go away.

Out of interest, what do you make of the trends shown in this link?

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/31/stupid-is-as-stupid-does/

And I see you still have no comments to make on risk assessment/management by people who are taking climate change very seriously

http://www.munichre.com/en/ts/geo_risks/climate_change_and_insurance/default.aspx

or this from the Financial Times

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fa034360-d612-11dd-a9cc-000077b07658.html

________

Fungochumley

There are alarmists on both sides. Which part of that statement don’t you understand?

Bob Carter is a credentialed geologist, that doesn’t make him expert in climatology. He doesn’t publish in climate journals because he knows he will be debunked by the experts – he cherry-picks data, intentionally distorts climatology and misrepresents its findings. He is not a sceptic in the scientific sense (he doesn’t do the research) so he cannot be called a contrarian (a number of whom I quite admire as you already know). Consequently, Carter is commonly termed a “denialist” – he has his own reasons why he wants to play that game.

Me? I am a practicing scientist with expertise in things ‘water’, particularly in regard to land/ocean/atmosphere coupled systems. My work involves impacts of climate change on our water resources and requires collaboration with policy makers as well as industry representatives, both here and overseas.

I do not spruik in the populist media, nor do I entertain public speaking tours like Bob Carter or Tim Flannery. I don’t publish my name on OLO for commercial, privacy and academic reasons. OLO gives me a release valve to vent my personal opinions without the veil of my position – I think it is better because I can say things without being too PC.

What exactly did I “believe WILL happen” fungo?

Cont'd

Cont’d

Rather than Bolt, I encourage you to engage elsewhere – your ‘issues’ would be answered. If they’re not, you (like Col Rouge) are probably in a form of ‘denial’ (in the psychological sense, not the AGW sense) – IMHO.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/01/01/spot-the-recycled-denial-vi-chris-kenny/

________

Bazz

Thanks. I’ll put it this way – CO2 is increasing exponentially (not linearly) so therefore counteracts the logarithmic function of climate sensitivity.

I’m with you, I am not convinced the IPCC scenarios (SRES – a dated report) are as good as they could be either (there is a lot of work being done to improve on them). However, there is ample evidence to suggest that many of the IPCC projections (they are not predictions) are trending at the higher range than originally thought.

_______________

Spider

I’m sure you know there is a difference between weather and climate – Bush had trouble with this concept, Obama doesn’t.

So, what makes you think people like me are trying to con you?

_______________

Cowboy

“Recently read that 2008 is looking like the coldest in 100 years.”

Where did you read that? All the data sets I’ve looked at read otherwise.

Btw, I’m genuine and sincere too.

Q&A: "Which part of that statement don’t you understand?"

Gag! I see your sense of humour has caught up with the early '90s. That statement is actually an opinion, Q&A, a view, so I can understand it and disagree.

"What exactly did I “believe WILL happen” fungo?"

That what you believe WILL happen if someone debunks AGW is already a fact. you can check your own words. Do you understand now? I'll help you respond. Just tick a box -

[ ] Yes

[ ] No

[ ] I'm going on holidays

[ ] This thread is dead. I'm leaving

[ ] Awkward silence

It is very telling of your sense of superiority, unless you do have supernatural powers which I suspect you may believe you have. There are psychological states other than, ooooh, denial.

"Rather than Bolt, I encourage you to engage elsewhere – your ‘issues’ would be answered. If they’re not, you (like Col Rouge) are probably in a form of ‘denial’ (in the psychological sense, not the AGW sense) – IMHO."

Thanks for the diagnosis. You denounce Carter's qualifications, but apparently also believe you are an expert psychologist. You are not my teacher or my shrink, and I don't respect you, so what you encourage me to do is of little interest.

Those seniors moments again?

Q&A, "I am a practicing scientist with expertise in things ‘water’, particularly in regard to land/ocean/atmosphere coupled systems. My work involves impacts of climate change on our water resources..."

And what a fine job you're clearly doing.

"I do not spruik in the populist media, nor do I entertain public speaking tours like Bob Carter or Tim Flannery."

I'm sure the demand is huge.