Q&A,

I didn't think you were talking to me anymore, but in what seems to be a conciliatory spirit, I will try not to reignite old conflicts.

If I understand you correctly, you seem to be saying that no one yet knows what drove CO2 concentrations down in the past, as you don't appear to be disputing that this has happened. I'm probably showing my ignorance, but I am, of course, assuming that equal effort has been put into running these super-dooper models with temperature as an independent variable. In which case, good luck with your continued search.

Conundrum: If Protagoras talked in a forest and no one was there to hear, would she still be a pillock?

The Global Warming Theory, circa 1986 has left us now with close to a quarter of a century of predicting the end of the world as we know it, as defined by it’s authors at the home of world politics, the United Nations. How many people will keep following this warning of doomsday for another 25 years?
The NOAA while not yet declaring the theory dead yet, has gladly provided us with 11 straight years of North American cooling and frankly, that is reasonable enough for reasonable people deniers or not. The climate crisis did not arrive, it’s getting cooler, the natural forces of La Nina kicked global warming’s ass and there is now wide spread debate among free and unrestrained observation for obvious reasons, the world did not come to a screeching halt as predicted. Consultants in lab coats, pandering politicians, PR firms and corporate media cling to this aging theory for understandable reasons.
As the coming years of warnings and silly predictions unfold, history will leave global warming along side the neocon’s WMD scam, Y2K, Killer Bees, BigFoot, UFO’s, witch burning, sacrificing goats... All I’m asking is that we not abandon our efforts to promote responsible environmentalism by abandoning this dead theory. Our planet is not as sensitive, fragile, tender and at risk as it would appear. CO2 certainly is not a pollutant as predicted and the theory should not represent all of what environmentalism is or should be.
We can all work together to preserve our planet instead of trying to save it with needless fear and panic from a crisis that has been clearly proven wrong. We can face the future of environmentalism and energy and sustainability with bravery instead of constantly being motivated with the gun of fear at our heads as the only motivation for responsible environmentalism.
As global warmers are cast to the side as ignorant fear mongers, the future of responsible environmentalism is a positive one as we get our efforts back on track.
Stop scaring my children by denying them futures, please.
"What would have to happen to prove me right?"

Now, now, children. Play nicely or I'll have to send you to your room.

Q&A, I have a couple of problems with your suggestion that the models can hindcast the past climate closely.

What happened to the little ice age, & the medieval warm period? Didn't they come up with the hockey stick, denying that either had occured?

How much has the "reporting" of current temperature been raised by the loss of a hundred or more Siberian weather stations, which no longer report?

Even as I died of heat stroke, I would have to reject the IPCC reports. There has been just too much barefaced lying by that body, & it's fellow travellers, for many of us to ever take its stuff seriously.

In fact, the IPCC has confirmed to many people, the growing feeling that even one dollar, given to the UN, is money tatally wasted.

Q&A,

Thanks for your comments on the earlier question. You said "I think many people misinterpret what the vast majority of scientists think – the planet is not about to undergo a ‘catastrophic’ (tipping point) climate change any time soon due to AGW."

That left me a little confused. Are you saying most scientists do not believe the planet is about to undergo a 'catastrophic' tipping point?

Also, three other burning questions which my reading has led me to:

1) During previous interglacials, CO2 levels declined after peaking at higher/equivalent levels than our present level? Clearly there has been some strong and sustained mechanism which has prevented runaway global warming, but my reading and wiki searching has been unable to identify any mechanism strong enough to explain why in previous ages runaway global warming did not occur. Can you shed any light on why?

2) Have read that there appears to be some 'mystery' CO2 sink based on the observation that all measured sources of CO2, less all known CO2 absorbers ought to leave us much higher C02 levels that are currently observed (MUCH higher): http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/oco/news/oco-20090123.html. Isn't this a clear indication of how poorly understood the CO2 cycle is, particularly in a quantitative sense? Surely in the face of such significant holes in our understanding the environmental movement is jumping the gun in asserting their is no room for debate anymore?

3) I have read, and others have posted, that the effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas declines 'exponentially' with its concentration and that current CO2 levels already trap most of this radiation and further CO2 will have very little effect - like further coats of black paint on a window (as another poster described it). To what extent is this true?

4) Do you concede there is a real opportunity cost attached discontinuing/reducing the use of fossil fuels and shouldn't the opportunity cost be a fully investigated part of assessing 'what to do' about GW?

Sorry if this is 'too much' but I am generally interested in what the 'smarter' environmental supporters think about these issues.