"It never ceases to amaze me that people who have no qualified background in science think their unqualified opinions are going to overturn the fundamentals of science or the qualified opinions of the world's science academies."

It never ceases to amaze me the size of Q&A's ego, and the lengths he will go to silence others, hence his difficulty in engaging. When you say "fundamentals", I think you mean fundamentalism - of your breed of science anyway. I'm happy not to have the vested interests of "publish or perish". I trust my own intelligence. By repeatedly using the word denialism, you are by definition demonstrating fundamentalism - I know the truth, you don't. I have previously shown you to have unjustifiably smeared someone, but no acknowledgment was ever forthcoming, such is your unwillingness to engage and your own experience of pointlessness. I'm sure you will now say something like "get over it", or I'm afraid "you're going to harass me" or basically anything to avoid engaging as you have previously declared with me, as your hilariously overblown ego can't seem to cope with the slightest prick lest it pop like a CO2 black balloon. Easier just to say people have their head in the sand. As I imagine this is an example of your scientific honesty, then I choose not to unquestioningly trust your self-proclaimed authority, or the world's science academies. How dare anyone question the authority of the Church!

You have stated previously that "we" continue to search for the negative feedbacks leading to previous lowering of CO2, but didn't seem to acknowledge that this was a case of your failure to find them, and their obvious existence, as you don't seem to deny that levels have come down markedly before.

Engagement? If you don't want to engage with the public, why do you spend so much time here?

Faustino: "In respect of warming, it is clear from Carter et al’s “Due Diligence” paper that current temperatures are within patterns of variation established since the end of the Little Ice Age, that increased greenhouse gas emissions have not led to a measurable deviation from these trends and that temperatures in the last decade are well below those projected by IPCC modelling.

...... ..... there is no evidence for “tipping points” or runaway warming."

I'm interested in this, Faustino.

I'm interested in the scientific peer reviewd publications put out through - lets say the IPCC - and approved by that body. Obviously you have read them and know that they are incorrect in their research, incorrect in their analysis, and incorrect in their conclusions. They would have to be for you to be right in what you say. Climate scientists say there are tipping points, for instance. And they do make conclusions that AGW is responsible for a good share of the increase in temperature this last century or so.

Which recent particular scientific publications are you referring to that would be wrong about that.

I'm sure you must have read them in detail. So please share.

As for Carter, his speciality is not climate. He has not published anything on global warming through the peer review process that I can find.

And as for the hapless Mr Fielding and the questions he was given to ask, they have been done to death even. It might amaze you to know that when climate scientists do their modelling they take into acount many variables, like the solar cycle, El Ninos, changes in circulation and overturning in the oceans..etc. Yes, climate scientists actually know about that stuff. Maybe you should drop Fielding a line and explain that to him. He will be excited to find out there are things like a solar minimum. I bet his brand new friends haven't told him that stuff yet.

bpors, Carter, like others who advocate a head in sand approach, doesn't do climate science in any sense. Natural climate changes are pointed out when convenient and ignored when not. It was Carter who complained that 1998 should be excluded when estimating warming in the few years following as it was an outlier that would skew averages. Later, the same hot spike in a rising trend is the foundation stone of his arguments that we've had cooling since! And people take what he says seriously? Utter rubbish but very popular with the disbelievers. Meanwhile the quiescent sun isn't quiet any more, we're headed for el nino conditions and it doesn't take a GCM to predict ongoing warming.

As for the 'Decade of Cooling' - 8 out of the 10 hottest years on record, the lowest arctic summer ice extent on record, more ice shelves gone than ever, greater loss of glacial ice than ever, the highest sea level on record, the greatest ocean heat content - if that's cooling then the next round of warming will be frightening.

Ken - does it matter what Carter or Gore or Pachaury says?

The climate is changing, as it always has, except now there are people who want to keep it exactly as it is right now.

Whether you cut CO2, or measure temperature in the ocean, the air, or there is or is not stratospheric cooling/warming is irrelevant.

We have to adapt, though of course it is easier to complain and argue, rant, assign blame and responsibilty for whatever and scream than face and accept reality.

I cannot understand why some people want to bankrupt the world and put us back to the stoneage technologically just because they are so frightened of change.

Doing something stupid is not better then doing nothing.

Climate change, yes it can and it will.

Odo, you are right - it doesn't matter what Gore or Pachaury say.

And the climate goes thru natural lchanging cycles. But how does that cancel out AGW. This isn't about making the climate static. You might be amazed to know that climate scientists know what you know, that their are variations in the climate. Wow!

It sounds to me that it is you who want to keep things the same, unchanging.

If you were curious, you might want to read up on what their research says.

If the majority of climate scientists' reseach is correct then cutting pollution is important. If their long term projections are correct, then we might not adapt to successfully.

As for ranting, screaming, assigning blame, what are you talking about?

If the projections are correct then bankruptcy will be the least of our worries.

Doing nothing when when we have had several decades worth of warnings about this would be criminal.

As for technology, we have stagnated in an inefficient, outdated fossil fuel powered economy for too long. Maybe its time we cranked up technology, instead of holding it back.

And now for something really cheerful: http://www.alternet.org/environment/141081/the_dark_side_of_climate_change%3A_it%27s_already_too_late%2C_cap_and_trade_is_a_scam%2C_and_only_the_few_will_survive/?page=entire
The Odos of this world, and they are legion, are a bit like the flint miners of the neolithic period fulminating against the introduction of bronze - they can only see the threat to their livelihood, the threat to the way they live now.
I do not know if Lovelock is right and that it is already too late. What I do know is that those communities that will survive and indeed prosper are those that are able to develop local resilience. Such communities are already beginning to emerge, far from returning to the stoneage, such communities are at the cutting edge of technology - true they may not have plasma telvisions but if you are too busy living life you have not the time to be a spectator.