It's late where I am now but I can see you've all had an exciting weekend.

In Rumsfeld's words, climate science is "a known unknown", that is, we know we don't know everything about it. Putting aside the huffing and puffing from some that we know enough. We don't, that's why the models all turn out different results.

The climate (and weather) conspire to embarrass those that claim they know all. Weather is different, or is it just so complex that it is beyond us to predict beyond a few days.

The media reports (from scientists?) extreme hot, severe cyclonic event events are due to AGW, but then there is silence when there is an extreme cold event - the community sense something is not quite right? Selective refutation is not helpful.

Hence the rise of the skeptics.

It's interesting that when a journalist makes skeptical noises, he is castigated for not being a climate scientist, but if a greenpeace salesman, a lawyer, a retired business planner, book sellers etc make claims - none of the critics, above, make any noise at all, let alone remind them they are speaking out of turn.

Selective outrage, or is it just another avenue of attack when all else appears to fail?

A lot of dodging and weaving folks, lot's of personal attacks and of course snide comments, but that's standard.

Mark and Graham have a point though, many AGW believers want to get into technical link wars, because that's what they are comfortable with, (factual claim, refutal, insult, counter-insult etc standard web forum battle tactics) and are not addressing the point, that climate is not as well understood as many think it is.

I guess if you accept climate science is not well understood, then for an AGW believer, it brings doubt, dare I say, skepticism into the argument naturally?

I don't want to gamble on our future, I want money invested to cope with climate change, not to tilt at windmills to change the climate.

Mark
Yes, you have hit a nerve. I'll explain why (and address some of the other comments) when I get back ... away till end of week.

RPG, the 'extreme cold' events you claim are ignored from the data ALL show up on the temperature reports from NASA, they really do. You just don't want to admit that while there are a few local 'extreme cold events' the vast majority of trends across this planet are UP!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4

So please either justify this unwarranted slander on climate institutions or retract this unfounded and paranoid 'opinion' of yours. (And answering the 9 questions in the peak oil thread might also help your credibility. You said you knew something about it and had an 'informed opinion' but still haven't answered those 9 fundamental questions).
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9466&page=4

RPG said: “A lot of dodging and weaving folks, lot's of personal attacks and of course snide comments, but that's standard.”
You complain that we are into personal attacks, but here is what is happening.
1. RPG asserts stuff without any evidence.
2. We highlight that you've asserted stuff without any evidence.
3. You cry "Not fair, personal attack!" but...
Where's the evidence?

So please watch the Youtube above which has NASA’s *worldwide* temperature mapped out.

RPG said: “Mark and Graham have a point though, many AGW believers want to get into technical link wars, because that's what they are comfortable with, (factual claim, refutal, insult, counter-insult etc standard web forum battle tactics) and are not addressing the point, that climate is not as well understood as many think it is.”
We want to get into these wars because, um, we’re right and you’re wrong and all the data says we’re right, so why the heck would we ignore all that data because isn’t this a *scientific discussion* about the *data* and not about *your opinion*.

You’re coming across as a whiny little boy not allowed to break the rules. Please try and ask yourself whether you are just asserting your opinion all the time, or whether *anything* you say is backed by *solid data you can refer us to*!

The increasing coverage of the polar icecaps and Greenland and the tremendous increase in glaciers world wide would prove beyond any shadow of a doubt to all but the meanest intelligence that we are facing a another ice age.
What evil forces make the majority of climatologists disbelieve the truth right before their eyes?

To round up many of the posts are way off the mark of the original article but, to repeat, the article I wrote is clear and straight forward and supported by quotes mainly from the warming side. The problem is that the warming side has admitted that temperatues have flatlined-declined in the past decade and have come up with several different stories to explain away the change.
The only responses from the warmers in these posts has been sneering, allegations of errors where there are none (or worse insisting that one point in the story is in error when it isn't), outright insults - the label "eco-criminal" is interesting, considering what the article says - or ranting about unrelated subjects. There has been no refutation of the thrust of the story. No one has even come close. I thank those who have taken the trouble to write in support and refute the oftgen wierd posts promoted by this article... The orthodoxy is near collapse

Quite frankly Mark, it's very difficult to take you seriously when you selectively quote from abstracts of papers that actually provide empirical and historical data for the very things that you scoff at scientists for wanting to include in their calculations.

That is, positive feedback mechanisms.

First you say they don't exist or at least there is no evidence for them, now you say that they do and here's the evidence for them. In either case you are saying that we shouldn't worry about that CO2, so at least you are consistent on that point.