Spindoc, I apologise if I seemed to put on airs and come across as someone 'qualified' in this area, that was not my intention. All I was asking is if someone disagrees with global warming, what do they do about the REAL foundations for the science? The ACTUAL rationale is totally different to the straw-men created by Exxon funded sceptics.

Indeed, "Me me" provides a perfect example. Mememine insists on repeating that their "prophecies of doom" have failed repeatedly over the last 25 years, as if the events were predicted then! (Grow up Me me!)

Rather than failed "prophecies" we see actual warming events unfolding faster than predicted!

Witness the record Arctic melting in 2007. There are now projections that the North Pole could be ice-free by summer 2013! This was formerly projected for mid-century or 2100! That summer water will no retain more heat in "albedo flip" (from reflecting 90% to absorbing 90%!)

Witness the pine-bark beetle's plague destroying Canada's pine forests because Canada cannot seem to get a low enough winter freeze!

Witness ever higher average temperatures, heatwaves, forest fires, and a demonstrable increase in the number of climate related natural disasters. WHO estimate 200 thousand people a year die from climate change!

However, Me Me will no doubt say temperatures have not increased since 1998. These are the sorts of nonsense straw-men that deceitful fossil fuel interests circulate, and the gullible swallow hook line and sinker. They'll leave out El Nino effects or decadal trends, and just cherry-pick whatever data they want. At one stage I was nearly taken in by this rubbish, but after reading around found the climate guys knew what they were talking about and the SCEPTICS just sounded like used-car salesmen, dodging all pertinent questions.

So again Spindoc, are you aware that the basic climate science is based on the physics of spectrometry and the Radiative Forcing Equation? (This from one layman to another :-)

Also, if the whole thing IS wrong, how do you account for so many independent and reputable scientific organizations getting it wrong, together, after so much study?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations

A predictably defensive and juvenile response, Progort, from someone clearly incapable of admitting when they are WRONG.

It seems I need to remind you that it was you who accused me of error, so don’t give me “tut tut – silly me”, implying some sort of pedantry on my part for simply showing that your criticism was WRONG. What was required was an acknowledgment, or, heaven forbid, an apology for being WRONG. I note the absence of both.

After evading that you were WRONG, you throw up some smoke bomb about the limitations of formatting on OLO. Don’t worry, I know exactly how your bull*&%ing works – confuse the whole picture and you might be able to hide the fact you dropped a stinker.

Unfortunately, in order to do so, you “conveniently”, “mischievously”, and “deceitfully” (sound familiar?) ignore that I explicitly stated not once, but twice, that I expected such formatting neither from Q&A in his post or anyone else’s here. So I've already answered your strange "if not, why not?" diversion.

In fact, your mention of the formatting limitations only emphasizes the point I was originally trying to make - the point, as usual, being the part you miss. There is a reason such guidelines exist in formal publishing, and a reason their absence here can easily lead to misunderstanding.

In all seriousness, I am not sure if you are consciously dishonest or just not very smart.

I suggest anyone who thinks that the global warming theory (not to be confused with responsible environmentalism or pollution) at least have the honesty to make a sign that says "THE END IS NEAR" and march down your street with it held high and proud if you really want to scare the kids by denying them futures. Look a kid in the eyes and tell them they are not going to have kids because global warming and climate change are real. And climate change IS real by the way, it used to be called weather, before you politically correct climate pu$$ie$ came on the scene 23 years ago with this silly theory.
History will not be kind to you warmies, OR this 23 year old dead theory. Politics has always dictated science all through history.
What’s really is sad is how you warmies cling to what their “scientists” say and anyone who questions with an opposing view is childishly demonized. This global warming scam is your WMD scam warmies and I dare you to prove that there is a climate crisis happening now. If I can’t experience a climate crisis but believe there is one because of polar bear pictures at Google says there is, we are then entering a new dark age of ignorance and needless fear.
Life is good and getting better.
Answer this:
“What would have to happen to prove me right?” (and telling us to wait another 23 years proves the theory to be just a self fulfilling prophecy.)
AND STOP SCARING MY KIDS YOU FREAKS!

Mememine, Wow, what a fact filled reply! So eloquent, so full of data, such a devastating counter-argument! Gosh, points A-D were explicitly addressed, with numbered articulate subpoints i — iv, and all so referenced by peer reviewed scientific literature!

Whoops, sarcasm meter just broke. I actually give your response 5% for effort, I've met scarier trolls in other forums, and 0% for content.

(You trolls are all so predictable and, quite frankly, boring!!)

"In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]"

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

If you have anything substantive to say I'll gladly respond. Right now, the actual "advanced common sense" of science is telling me that maybe your kids DO need to be scared because us adults are stuffing up their world! Perhaps, if you TRULY loved your kids, you'd look into this subject and, if true, get on board and do something to help!?

But I really don't think you love your kids, you're just here for some negative attention. (Negative attention is better than no attention to the mindset of a troll). If you want to demonstrate that you are not a troll, please respond with some data! Just calling names is easy, as this post demonstrates.

Eclipse Now:
Our air is cleaner than the smoggy 70’s, we are living longer than at any time in history as a species, 40 years of environmentalism has made our planet better, pollution does not stay in the air for ever, our planet is resilient NOT delicate and fragile, the theory is 23 years old, Newest data from NOAA shows 11 years of cooling for the USA, so 10 years of cooling for my Canada and the USA is reasonable enough to not needlessly instill fear and anxiety on an entire generation of children.
La Nina “delayed” global warming according to your high priests of pop science and politics so even it is more powerful than the magical forces of your self fulfilling prophecy of global warming.
If you did you would see what history will say and that is when paid consultants in lab coats, PR firms, pandering politicians and the hysterical corporate media all agree on the very same single issue, be skeptical, not obedient. Can you even think for yourself? Any denier is more knowledgeable on the theory for obvious reasons, we are all former believers.
It’s like you wish for this misery to happen by the way you cling to the failing evidence and not only scaring our kids with it but teaching them to be the politically correct and obedient and un-inquisitive non-questioning pushovers that you glowbull whiners are.
You can’t see this issue of the CO2 theory being so outdated that in the realms of responsible environmentalism, it is taking us down the wrong road. CO2 obviously is not what as dangerous as the impression was in this non science issue of political science and pop culture forming a media and cultural nightmare from hell.
At the very least all I’m asking is that you warmies put down your skirts and abandon this theory and join us deniers in responsibly preserving our environment and making it even better.
Life is good and let’s face the future with the motivation of intelligence and bravery. Fear is an uncivilized motivator, if not “unscientific”

Eclipse Now, <<I apologise if I seemed to put on airs and come across as someone 'qualified' in this area, that was not my intention.>> In that respect, no apology needed, as members of WMIDA that’s what we do. As I’ve said before, OLO’ers have demonstrated enormous tenacity in trying to come to grips with the concept of GW. In the end this scientific debate should not be in the public domain, it is divisive, bitter and has reached a stand off.

You asked about the rationale behind disagreement with GW. I’ll answer from my personal perspective and you can determine what traction, if any, it has with you.

First I define a skeptic as someone who has not yet been convinced that there is “hard” supporting science, as evidenced by the lack of agreement between scientists on the interpretation of the available measurements. I define GW supporters as those who have made up their minds; they are convinced that some scientists have correctly interpreted available measurements. Simply put, the undecided and the decided. No labels or abuse necessary.

Beyond that I can only speak to my need for “harder science”, whilst fully accepting that some who believe in the science have also been convinced of a sense of urgency. To me this is a mechanism for promoting a “soft science” solution against an artificially inflated problem. This is a direct consequence of forcing a scientific debate into the public (unqualified) domain and is an entirely predictable outcome.

I have been convinced that total human carbon emissions are working our biosphere very hard however, I am equally of the view that it is coping very well. I also believe that we should all protect our planet from other forms of pollution and human excesses and that the GW movement is a serious distraction from more important reforms and developing a greater understanding of our biosphere.

(Continued)