Arjay

Wrong link. Left out "www",

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

But this is a good turn in the debate on this forum. If the measurements of the robots turns out to be accurate and shows no warming of the oceans, then AGW would be in serious doubt. I take it that by posting the link that it is the main basis of your opinion on AGW. If so, then would your opinion change if the measurements turned out to be inaccurate, and recalibrated robots showed warming?

Fester our climate is undergoing change,it is a matter of keeping a level head on decifering cause and effect relationships.The overall consensus is that the oceans have increased by 0.6 deg C.We don't really know what are long term variations and short term imapcts made by man.If the information from these robots are wrong then yes I will accept that,but I will not jump to wild conclusions about imminent devestation due to drastic sea level changes.12 mm rise in 5yrs is not great.In the next 5yrs it may reduce by the same amount.The average depth of our oceans are 3720 m reaching a maximum depth over 11,000 m.Now 12mm is 32/10 millionths of the average oceans depth.There could be any number of variables affecting this.They have not been seriously studying the oceans long enough to draw real conclusions as to cause and affect scenarios.

The real danger is not from climate change itself,but from panic generated from an over populated world.We are more likely to destroy ourselves fighting over limited resources and energy than dangers from environmental changes.

This environmental panic is just adding fuel to the fire!When there is a fire in a picture theatre,more people die from being crushed in the panic than the actual fire.

Arjay

My question was whether evidence of a warming ocean would change your opinion on agw. Is there a particular rate of warming that might lead you to change your opinion? Your reaction to such a change and comparison with other problems faced by humanity is interesting, but answers a different question altogether.

Real hard scientific evidence that cannot be argued with.I will agee with that Fester.Presently there is very little of it.People have taken sides simply because it suits their particular bias.The Greens do themselves no favours.They are becoming like the Catholic Church.Too much faith in the cause and not enough examination of the evidence.

"Too much faith in the cause and not enough examination of the evidence."

Yes, I think that an opinion on a scientific question like agw should have objective boundaries. With faith there is no boundary. That is why I asked you what objective boundary you have set for your own opinion. For your own boundary of belief, you stated:

"Real hard scientific evidence that cannot be argued with."

But isn't this boundary impossible to cross and so identical to having no boundary? This would tend to make your opinion similar to an act of faith. Would you agree?

Fester,"So isn't this boundary impossible to cross and so identical to having no boundary."What are you smoking Fester?Your invective bares no relationship to the argument at hand!I will believe unadulterated scientific evidence.All we have been presented with is is vague scientific findings with no imperical evidence to back it up!I will remain a sceptic and so should most logical/sane beings.

In the realm of improbability believe nothing of what you hear,and only half of what you see!