Pericles

"Just a bunch of guys looking for data that agrees with their theories."

Every one does, including you, my dear.

Rather than arguing I have always preferred action and whether you accept climate change or not, and deny that the past 200 years of industrialisation has had no impact at all on our environment, that's your opinion. I disagree.

Evidence is coming in from all around the globe with changes in extreme weather conditions.

Switching from the Antarctic to the Arctic:

"Scientists monitoring the ice’s annual growth and contraction say the frigid sheath ended winter with the fifth-smallest geographic reach since 1979, when satellites first began tracking sea-ice trends. All six below-average winters have occurred between 2004 and 2009.

This year, winter ice also enters a new melt season with record-low levels of thick older ice, the kind that has has survived several summers. This is the ice that persists the longest to help cool the planet during summer; it reflects sunlight back into space during the Arctic’s long hours of daylight – think 186 “days” of sunlight at the North Pole.

And it’s the ice that provides the foundation for further thickening when sea ice expands again the following winter.

From 1981 to 2000, multiyear ice made up an average of 30 percent of the Arctic’s ice cover at winter’s end. Coming out of this winter, only 9.8 percent of the ice was of the multiyear persuasion."

Full article can be found below with some excellent links for those who wish to be further informed.

http://features.csmonitor.com/environment/2009/04/06/arctic-sea-ice-fights-losing-winter-battle-again/

BTW there is nothing wrong with being sceptical Pericles, keeps us all on our toes. However, my question to you is this:

Can we afford to continue 'business-as-usual'?

A little unfair, Fractelle.

>>"Just a bunch of guys looking for data that agrees with their theories." Every one does, including you, my dear.<<

In this particular case, I would not dare to formulate a theory on such a complex topic. As such, I would suggest that I am open to a whole lot more data than most.

But you pose a very appropriate question.

>>Can we afford to continue 'business-as-usual'?<<

Almost certainly not. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should ignore the possibility that our climate is changing/has changed/will change in the future.

But I do think that we have as yet very little grasp of the situation. And because of that, we don't actually have any answers. If the best we can do is run around wringing our hands and turning off the lights for an hour every year, then I'd say that is very much part of the problem.

Ok, so I exaggerate about the turning off the lights once a year. But the principle - that all we really have is futile gestures - is correct.

I am personally against the concept of futile gestures.

Once we can reach agreement on what the dimensions of the problem are, we can start to work on a response.

It will only ever be a response, not a solution, by the way.

Because it is highly unlikely that we will find a "solution" that is acceptable to all - and by all, I mean the populations of the developed world (America, Europe), the fast-developing world (China, India) and the undeveloped world (most of Africa).

All we have right now is squabbling scientists, and knee-jerk governments around the world determined only to win the next election with a necessary, but suitably vague green tinge.

So with your permission, I'll keep my sceptical hat on for a while longer.

Pericles

Two observations of the articles you mention:

1. There is no mention of cooling due to ozone depletion. If this is a discussion of Antarctic temperature change, why not mention this factor?

2. All the comments are supportive of the articles. 135 comments in one article, and all positive? That seems odd, and would suggest to me that criticisms of the articles were not included: Why might that be?

There is a response to this on Realclimate

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue/

where the authors point out that the information in the paper has been verified by independent techniques.

As I have said, Pericles, I base my own opinion of AGW on the change in sea level, and were the trend to change and sea levels fall, my opinion would change also. Articles like the ones you mention seem intent on discrediting climate scientists by criticising their methods. I have seen this done before. It is a regularly used method. In all cases so far, what ultimately resolves the dispute is an independent verification. Maybe the next effort will be a valid one? Who knows, they might get lucky yet.

Pericles (Ratty-ifyawanabserious)

I think it would be better if you can positively and constructively contribute to the solution.

http://u.tv/News/Scientists-fear-worst-on-global-warming/945f12b0-5b00-4519-a9d9-1646373a9f54

Can we discuss what needs to be done, rather than 'what wavelength CO2 absorbs at' or "they say, we say'?

>> Q&A: "You are a so called 'troll of the denialosphere'. What's next ... Cato Institute, Marohassy, Evans, Lavoisier Group, Bellamy, Tech Central Station, Carter, ... ?"

I'm not familiar with all of those but checking them out will give me something to do.

The problem is that anyone who disagrees with you will be said to be "discredited" and denigrated so here's just a few more:
. Walter Starck
. Douglas V. Hoyt
. Roy Spencer
. John Christy
. Don Easterbrook
. Ian Clark
. William Kininmonth
. Fred Singer
. Richard Courtney
. David Legates
. Richard Muller
. Claude Allegre
. Duncan Wingham
. Tim Patterson
. Dennis Jensen
. Cliff Ollier

Fine Ratty. Now I know your not serious.

Pericles, your call.