We are often told that the climate change debate is about finding causes and coming up with solutions – but, sometimes you get the inkling that there is a little more going on. Consider the following:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227146.000-methane-controls-before-risky-geoengineering-please.html

Note firstly, the admission that the measures used are inaccurate,
& secondly, this comment:

“TAKING METHANE INTO ACCOUNT WOULD SHIFT SOME OF THE BURDEN OF RESPONSIBILITY ONTO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES. It may seem UNFAIR to make developing countries more accountable for warming than they are now.”

It does seem that there is some selection of evidence going on here –there seems a reluctance to remeasure/redefine the role of methane because it may upset someone’s concept of FAIRNESS!

Apologies spindoc, please allow me to regain my composure and answer your questions thus:

1. “supposed ice melt” – it is real, please refer to the National Snow & Ice Data Centre (they have archives that Atman may be interested in).

2. “polar bear extinction” – not expert in this field.

3. “extreme weather conditions are in fact (sic) occurring during a cooling period, 1997 (sic) to 2009.”

Why 1997 spindoc? Actually, don’t bother. Please try and understand the basics first - the Arctic (and West Antarctic for that matter) has NOT been cooling. You are obviously confusing global temperature anomalies with regional.

The cause of extreme weather conditions I have answered - you have obviously overlooked or can’t understand. Weather conditions are a consequence of the Earth system trying to equilibrate. Wrt extreme conditions – increased energy has to be dissipated somehow. E.g. some goes into the oceans, some goes into the atmosphere – both react in varying ways. Have a guess, where has this 'extra' energy come from?

Having said that, do you know what the rate of ‘cooling’ has been since 1997 (or should I say 1998? Or should I say 2005? Byjeez, the hottest 10 years on record have occurred in the last 12 years. Pick any start-year spindoc and tell me how much it has 'cooled'.

Now - I agree, there is much debate in the scientific community about ‘attribution’. Indeed, we even throw cream pies and donuts at each other during these debates to make a point on the minutiae. Tell you what, I'll bet you a cream pie to a donut that Keenleyside is right - temps will start to rise again (my guess within 1 - 2 years) with a vengeance.

No spindoc, you are not a student of mine (neither are any of the other OLO ‘sceptics’) and you are most definitely not an AGW agnostic, imho. Yes, I will give answers to questions when and where I can – but mostly the so called ‘sceptics’ don’t like the answers because, well ... they don’t like the answers. Why ask?

Q&A asks Pick any start-year spindoc and tell me how much it has 'cooled'.
Try 1999 that is 10 years ago, it is only up.

Q & A, I have been in sales for over thirty years but have never subscribed to the notion that bulldust baffles brains. Abraham Lincoln expressed this best when talking about "Fooling" people. You think you can Q & A but it cannot be done.
You say it has been the hottest 10 years in the last 12? I have heard this what I would thought would be an easily ascertainable "Fact" be disputed and this has got to be laid to rest.
I know you will, in your usual supercillious manner, refer me to a 20,00 word line of rubbish from some "Scientist". Refer my opening paragraph.
This is all about "Scientists" wanting grant money and sleazy politicians wanting all our money in taxes. This is a re-run of the 1930's and if Rudd and crew are successful we really will see a recession. Rudd is now preparing us for this with his latest essay. You people make me laugh you think you deserve our adulation when all you get is our derision and rightly so!

Q&A, no apology needed, you weren’t teasing me. Some good stuff in your post, appreciated.

You are right to say I’m not an AGW agnostic however, that does not mean I support atmospheric carbon concentrations as “the” primary or exclusive cause, and I don’t think its good to keep chucking carbon into the atmosphere but I most definitely do not support any form of carbon tax as a solution, but lets not mix causes, effect and solution at this stage.

It is also absolutely pointless for you or any convinced AGW’er, to beat me over the head with scientific “facts”. The primary reason for this is because like so many vocal commentators on both sides of this debate, I have no qualifications or professional credibility in this subject. Another reason is evidenced on OLO, every time someone says “polar ice is melting, just look at this link”, another will point to an equally credible, yet contradictory link. The debate is therefore stalled in counter claim, frustration and animosity.

I’m genuinely trying to find a bridge to establish at least an understanding between divergent perspectives, not who is right or wrong.

To this end I would like to table some perspectives, just mine, I’m not speaking for anyone else. I’d like you to respond to these perspectives, but not from you’re scientific expertise but from a people perspective.

Lets start with <<If those selling AGW cannot get “buyers”, they might wish to start with a good look at the “product”, the “packaging” and their “salespeople” before blaming or abusing their potential customers.>>

Questions of buyer, why do I need to buy it (AGW) in the first place and what would you expect me to do if I bought it?

Questions of the product, what is it, what does it do, who uses it and what are the benefits?

Questions of the packaging, Why are the media, national politics, book publishers, scientific communities, commentariat and international bodies, promoting this product in such diverse, contradictory, threatening, costly and divisive packaging?

(continued)

(continued)

Questions of the salespeople, why are so many unqualified salespeople (AGW’ers), who do not understand my needs or their product, pushing so hard, with such a rude, threatening, abusive and arrogant sales pitch? Why are they blaming me for not buying? And what benefits do these salespeople expect to receive?

You said, <<Yes, I will give answers to questions when and where I can – but mostly the so called ‘skeptics’ don’t like the answers because, well ... they don’t like the answers. Why ask?>>

In response, 1) I do look forward to your answers. 2) I feel the word “skeptic” is a derogatory term for those who have not bought your product. 3) <<skeptics’ don’t like the answers because, well ... they don’t like the answers. Why ask?>>
Wrong, they don’t like the answers because they don’t answer the question, that’s why they keep asking, it’s an “objection” not a necessarily a rebuttal.

Q&A, Rule No1 of “selling” (debating, convincing, promoting, marketing) is handling objections. They are defined as “buying signals”, positive not negative, a human response to a sales pitch, the “give me a reason to buy”. We start doing this even before we can walk or talk.

Finally (for the moment anyway), you would like to bet me a cream pie to a donut that Keenleyside is right and temps will start to rise again (your guess within 1-2 years). Done, a cream pie it is. Unfortunately the stakes for our society are actually much higher than a cream pie, the developed world is heading directly for a huge economic slug, a carbon energy tax, on the strength of a “prediction” by Keenleyside and your “guess”? Now that’s what I call gambling.

The cooling to which I referred was of course the BOM records for global annual mean surface temperature. This does show that cooling has occurred since 1997 (or 1998). I take your comment that << temps will start to rise again>> as acknowledgement of that fact.

See what I mean about selling? You did answer “a” question but it did not answer “my” question.