The definition of the word science, is Mans best guess.( and that's all you are doing). Look at climate change like this. Once upon a time, the world was stable,( just for a brief moment in the time scale of us) and then, co2 was back with us(in the past one hundred years) and with our growth of knowledge, ( or the opposite of) the genie is out of the bottle) and the big question is, where is the responsible for what is happening.

The answer is yes. ITS US!

But to answer the question? I have given you the answers and the solution to the problem, but I know its not as easy as I have explained it.( or is it)

You can put a band-aid on the problem or stick your heads in the sand.

Its your choice.

Arjay

There is no invective I assure you. I am merely trying to find out what objective boundary you have set for your opinion on AGW. All you have answered so far is "Real hard scientific evidence that cannot be argued with.". As far as I know, this would be impossible to do. So essentially there is no evidence that would change your opinion. As such it is the same as faith based belief.

As you find the idea of holding a scientific viewpoint on faith offensive, I must have misunderstood what you meant by "Real hard scientific evidence that cannot be argued with.". Could you be a little more specific as to what you meant by this?

Arjay

“Q&A see http://.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
Titled "The Mystery of Global Warmings Missing Heat"This was written in March 2008 unlike your ref that are 12 mths old.”

Thanks for the link.
Btw, you started this thread on Argo; I assumed you would have at least looked at the Argo home page before your stated correction “NASA deployed these robots in 2003”.

http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/index.html

If you look at the internal link ‘Argo research in press’ you will be able to see what is being done with Argo, it is continually being updated. I don’t understand why you are trying to imply my references are 12 mths old.

The NPR story led to a burst of blogging from ‘denialists’ questioning why the rest of the mainstream media were silent on this ‘blockbuster’. Canada’s National Post published a column by Dr. Willis explaining his findings in the context of long-term climate change.

In it, Dr. Willis included a succinct description of how some people opposed to restrictions on greenhouse gases sometimes operate:

Quote:
“It is a well-established fact that human activities are heating up the planet and that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come. Climate change sceptics often highlight certain scientific results as a means of confusing this issue, and that appears to be the case with Mr. Gunter’s description of our recent results based on data from Argo buoys.

Indeed, Argo data show no warming in the upper ocean over the past four years, but this does not contradict the climate models. In fact, many climate models simulate four to five year periods with no warming in the upper ocean from time to time. The same is true for the warming trend observed by NASA satellites; it too is in good agreement with climate model simulations. But more important than agreement with computer models is the fact that four years with no warming in the upper ocean does not erase the 50 years of warming we’ve seen since ocean temperature measurements became widespread …”

Cont’d

Cont’d

… “It is important to remember that climate science is not a public debate carried out on the opinion pages of newspapers. What we know about global warming comes from thousands of scientists pouring over countless data sets, conducting experiments to figure out how the climate works and scrutinizing every aspect of each other’s work.

It is easy to pick on computer climate models for not simulating certain things or point out the odd measurement that isn’t well understood. Despite this, models and data of all different types tell the same story about the past century: the oceans are warming, sea levels are rising, the temperature of the atmosphere is increasing and carbon dioxide levels continue to go up. Given that, you don’t need a fancy computer model or an Argo buoy to tell you that the future will be warmer.

The real debate is not over whether global warming exists, but how we as a society will address it. The climate system is already committed to a certain amount of warming from carbon dioxide emissions of the past, but the worst effects of global warming can still be avoided. It only requires the will to look toward the future and to curb our addiction to fossil fuels. That’s not alarmist, it’s just common sense.”
End Quote.

Healthy scepticism is part of science and should be encouraged, but there’s a clear difference between healthy scepticism and ‘denialism’. Science is not absolute but for ‘deniers’ no evidence is good enough – re your stance with Fester.

‘Deniers’ position themselves as intellectually more capable than the collective scientific community. They think there is some kind of ideological conspiracy in which scientists the world over are scampering around the planet, researching in their labs and building computer models of scenarios just to mess with our heads.

Arjay, keep asking questions about the Argo network – but please, do some homework before you start jumping to conclusions. Otherwise, you will be seen as just a simple ‘denier’ trolling with malevolent intent.