Historian

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9439#151189

Then in my post a day later:

Sorry, a correction to my comment to James Fairbairn yesterday. Of course, where I said Ken, I meant James.

Aside: post limits got me again, otherwise it would have been corrected straight away.

It now appears you have fixated on an OpEd by Michael Coulter:

"Even if it’s (science of climate change) wrong, enough people now believe it that it may as well be right."

"May as well be right"? Another stupid comment ... and people wonder why scientists get so peed off with the mainstream media.

James, can you suggest a way to make more people (like The Sunday Age's production editor) scientifically literate? And please, don't point me to your blog site.

Hi Q&A, you have an interesting use of the vernacular! The word "fixated" is a strong word to use when someone just references, tongue in cheek, one newspaper article. I'm sure we could trade "respected reporters" names until the cows come home, however what would that achieve for anyone still looking at this forum?

I'm confused as to why you would be upset for me referencing a negative comment you made about a previous article but as I said before if it caused you any offence I sincerely apologise.

Likewise I'm confused by your comment "And please, don't point me to your blog site." as all I was suggesting was people(not directed at you)look at the (only) mainstream news articles referenced on my website. So not to sure why that would be offensive to you, but I'm sure you have your reasons, and please do not feel obliged to visit the website.

Anyway I'm signing off from this particular forum now, not least as the article was posted a week ago now and in between family, paid work, and lobbying regarding the ongoing, largely unreported, Australian ecological disaster that is the Montara Oil Spill, there are not enough minutes in the day.

Kind Regards (& no doubt until the next time)

James
http://www.openyoureyesnews.com/category/environment/

Q&A

see http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

link suggests that human activity is responsible for 0.28% of increases in greenhouse gases taken water vapour into account, curious to see if there is validity to claims or can they be refuted

slasher

Whoever wrote that piece you linked to doesn't understand the difference between a "feedback" and a "forcing" ... or is deliberately distorting climate science. Either way, the piece has the potential to contribute to the white noise flying around the blogosphere.

If anyone really wants to contribute to a public discussion on climate science then they should make themselves familiar with the fundamentals; radiative transfer properties of green-house gases (including water vapour) is a good place to start.

However, as I have said before, most rabid critics of climate science or human induced global warming don't give credence to what scientists or scientific academies say ... you have to ask, why not?

James, if you were informed about climate science at all...
As far as I can tell all you know about climate science has been pre-filtered through sources that have an 'agw isn't happening' agenda. Maybe that enhances it's truthiness or something.
BTW, I didn't "simply say" your previous article denialist drivel - I gave plenty of reasons. I welcome readers to have a look at our exchange.

Ultimately, “History” will record how the computer based climate models of the late 20th and early 21st century were more the constructs of personal hubris than science

and how they lead the feeble minded along the path to

Socialism by Stealth.