CO2 causes a 1C warming if all else remains equal but in fact there appears to be a negative system response.

The evidence on increased high and medium clouds plus reducing low clouds since 2000 combined with increasing global albedo as reported by the Earthshine project has already been supplied.

I'm going to take a break now.

I find you and John Mason reasonable to deal with even if your interpretations of the available evidence do not match mine.

Edited by user 27 August 2012 12:58:27(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I'm sorry S.C.  It would seem you have not cared to watch any of the vids posted on the Jet issue?

To cut a long story short the jet is still poleward bound even in this recent sinuous incarnation.

Go back and watch the presentations of the evidence and those rather 'trippy' butterfly wing plots of the mean position of peaks and troughs of the Jet.

Just because one pattern is swamped by another doesn't mean that pattern is obliterated.

Think of it this way; the mid point of the jet is still trawling north. Be it a shallow curved line or a deep sinuous one the 'mid point' is still shifting north along with the tropic and the 10c oceanic isotherm.

DR David Evans on the politics of 'AGW'
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/03/climate-coup-the-politics/ 

Hmmm..

If you oppose the regulating class, you will get called an “extremist”, a “nut”, a “conspiracy theorist”, “right wing”, and every variation of “stupid” and “ignorant”, irrespective of the merits of what you say. Say anything that mentions or might imply race and they will also call you a “racist”. Because they own the mainstream media, they will call you these names in the news and current affairs, newspapers, television, websites, books, movies, and in trendy conversation.

Figure 4: Oppose them, and they call you names. And they own the media. [Credits: Office for the Protection of Children and Youth, Nonprofithub]

Name-calling by members of the regulating class is so rife that it often replaces content entirely. Asked to explain why they believe something, they will often just indulge in name-calling, sometimes sophisticated or cleverly disguised name-calling, but often there will be no actual evidence, argument, or reasoning in their thicket of pejoratives.

Their name-calling frightens most people into submission most of the time: “Ooh, I don’t want to get called names, especially in public, so I won’t say anything.” A second important effect is to make their supporters arrogant and confident to the point of delusion, because they believe their critics really are stupid, ignorant kooks—after all, everyone trendy like them says so!

Bunker mentality SC. It means you lost.

Originally Posted by: Stephen Wilde

I think I pretty much avoided issuing comments such as those described but that didn't provide any protection did it ?

Whenever I have expressed judgemental opinions it has been aimed at institutions and not individuals.Sometimes I have snapped back when insulted.

Note the huge difference beteen Grey - Wolf and Gandalf.

I don't agree with much that either of them says but Grey - Wolf is a model of good manners whilst Gandalf fires off and escalates to a personal level at every expression of opinion that he disagrees with.

Ulric, meanwhile, goes straight to the personal every time (seems to think he is being witty) and says next to nothing about the science except on rare occasions.

Devonian seems ok part of the time but joins in whenever he sees another , such as Gandalf, firing off.

Essan swings about between reasonable and rather catty in about equal proportions.

Most signs of verbal aggression by sceptical contributors are defences rather than attacks.

Well, if we're getting into character judgement (infact character assissination...).

Stephen Wilde plays the persecuted Gallileo very well.

Originally Posted by: Stephen Wilde

"infact character assissination"

Not really.

 

You are, no doubt, all nice guys in your general lives. My comments are just small observations about quirks of behaviour on this blog with no wider implications.

Such things happen when opinions become conflated with emotions.

Being made aware of them may help clear the air.

Do you think some of your responses are emotional?

Lets have a look at the article Four posted a link to on the previous page then shall we?

Who are the "Regulating Classes" exactly? Is it really OK to give the peer reviewed science and your own inexpert opinion equal weight? Is the whole thing a fraud and if it is, why would anyone concoct such a story? The whole thing just reeks of conspiracy theories and anarcho-capitalist froot loopery.

Somehow you expect us to discount the fact that we've just witnessed a catastrophic collapse of Arctic ice because you claim the MWP was warmer than now based on proxies you claim should be ignored. Who is pulling whose plonker here?

Edited by user 28 August 2012 11:47:30(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified