* The stuff that the sceptics are sceptical about.

The sentences I quoted in my post.

Putting facts in inverted commas, as if to imply that there are no facts - particularly when you suggest they are for 'revision' and should be 'questioned again and again and again"

2+2=4

Is that alright?

More CO2 molecules in the atmosphere cause more energy to be retained causing the temperature of the air to rise

Is that alright?

My point is, as per my previous post, that some principles, theories and facts do not need to be challenged ad infinitum.  The issue is what do you decide does not require challenge and what does.

Which in some ways brings us back to Ulric's point and something to which I have alluded before.  If you pick the latest fad from the lunatic sceptic camp and regurgitate it here that doesn't invalidate the mainstream science.  Furthermore, by repeatedly trawling the sceptic and denier fringe for titbits to playback here you and others do the case for scepticism a disservice.

We are just old Boars Ulric 

We just have tired old 'rising temp trend globally' or 'GHG's are able to warm our world' or 'The Arctic is melting to the point that it is impacting N.H. circulation patterns'........... they get a new Banner every week! Last week was Himalayan glaciers .....'till they realised how that just helped put Mass loss of Greenland/West Antatctica ice sheets into focus

In some ways they do help us remind folk of the science, and observations of climate, that form the main body of study today?

That's fine but I know that you know that the Earth would not be habitable without the presence of GHGs to absorb some of the sun's energy.  Therefore in accepting the role of the sun you are, de facto, accepting the greenhouse effect.

In accepting the greenhouse effect you must also, inevitably and logically, accept that changes in GHG concentrations affect the Earth's temperature and climate.

Get out of that one!

Thats why I stick with Solar output, it's the main driver of all things climatic imo. I do think your barking up the wrong tree with regards to CO2 molecules. A theory that works well in a lab only! 

Originally Posted by: polarwind 

That's fine but I know that you know that the Earth would not be habitable without the presence of GHGs to absorb some of the sun's energy.  Therefore in accepting the role of the sun you are, de facto, accepting the greenhouse effect.

In accepting the greenhouse effect you must also, inevitably and logically, accept that changes in GHG concentrations affect the Earth's temperature and climate.

Get out of that one!

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

Originally Posted by: Gandalf The White 

Thats very good SC. The response though is perhaps more correctly - .  

Originally Posted by: Solar Cycles 

Yes, I thought he came up with an elegant means of accepting that the greenhouse effect is entirely valid and clear to observe.

Or is this one of the facts you would like to re-write?

Edit: I don't believe Ulric has posted his answer yet.

Well it would help if you listed the issues you think are contentious.

I thought I would pull this to the business end of the thread, as Stephen failed to respond to my rebuttal of his latest ludicrous comment.

Stephen?

I'm now effectively asking Ulric and Gandalf the question, which science is settled? You have gone out of your way to put substance to and explain the consensus position which may prove correct, at least to a degree, but, nevertheless, what science is settled and will endure, Tom?

I thought I'd throw this into the mix....

I'm not a qualified scientist (Physics or Chemistry) so I can't definitely say that what is written here is false or otherwise.

Is there any mileage in the view that the science is flawed?

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2010/07/must-read-global-warming-alarmists-in.html

If you see the article here -

http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2012/04/a-tale-of-two-altitudes/ 

                                                                                                 ..................... there is an intertesting observation on stratospheric temperatures - or at least the author thinks it is interesting. Stephen might have something to say aboiut it?

Well aside from it being almost two years old and blatantly from a denier website....

I just love the opening, not contentious, positioning statement.....

Sensing that their sky-is-falling theory is crumbling under scientific scrutiny, the always-insecure global warming True Believers are losing their cool, lashing out at critics with a mounting campaign of scurrilous personal attacks, impugning the motives, integrity and mental state of anyone who refuses to genuflect before the high priesthood of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

I'm afraid that invariably i switch off around that point.

You might find this amusing - I had to stop myself laughing loudly...

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/

A classic in deliberate misunderstanding to try to prove a point.  I guess it must work if your knowledge of science is pre-school....

And when you've finished the comedy sketch, here is a more useful piece:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page6.php

I'll just throw this into the mix as well.

http://denialdepot.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/hadcrap4.html

The style of my link is the same as your post, the science as incisive. From yours: "Sensing that their sky-is-falling theory is crumbling under scientific scrutiny, the always-insecure global warming True Believers are losing their cool, lashing out at critics with a mounting campaign of scurrilous personal attacks, impugning the motives, integrity and mental state of anyone who refuses to genuflect before the high priesthood of anthropogenic global warming (AGW)." Great stuff, full of sciencyness!

From the article I quote we get a similar style: "Alarmists will tell you that HadCRUT4 is a global temperature record. This isn't entirely correct, as per usual you have to watch the thimble closely with these guys. The part they aren't telling you is that HadCRUT4 is yet another component in a global fraud perpetrated on the free world by a state-funded hierarchy of scientific gatekeepers and their political handlers at the behest of elite power-brokers in the helm of government who may or may not be representing an ancient race of reptiles which have enslaved man and plan to tax them." again, great stuff full of sciencyness!

So, imo, either they're both onto something or they're, just possibly, both utter tosh.

Outcome of investigation into last years Australian 'Death threat emails'.
The story was lapped up by The Guardian and others here, I wonder if they'll report this too?
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/05/pathological-exaggerators-caught-on-death-threats-how-11-rude-emails-became-a-media-blitz/

No , none whatever, the science has stood the test of time. It doesn't mean its the last word on the subject as recent papers look at the subject again and build on the past work. The results are not identical but still consistent with the same ideas.

Shocking Four, truly shocking......

In an open society why shouldn't any crackpot send threatening emails to scientists?

I thought the FoI request to see the emails was a nice touch.

Anthony Watts has posted this -

East Anglia Climatic Research Unit shown to be liars by results of latest FOIA ruling and investigation

see - http://wattsupwiththat.c...uling-and-investigation/

This is a very strong accusation, but he goes on to explain using Steve McIntyre's latest input here.

He claims that this is the first time he has used "liar" in over 7000 posts.

He obviously feels confident. Has he gone too far?

Hopefully the university will pursue him for defamation.  Maybe Stephen will defend the action?

Actually I find that site quite painful to read - it's full of cheap point scoring and misinformation (as I have demonstrated before).  It's quite difficult to accept any of it because I alwaya have the nagging doubt in my head about what he is concealing or misrepresenting in order to score another point.

One of the links has a cheap shot at Jones for an arithmetic error and another about his Excel skills.  Watts is hardly someone with an open mind, is he?

Actually they may welcome it from this source all the publicitiy surrounding climategate has substantially increased their student recruitment particularly in Environmental Science of which CRU is a unit.

I don't care for allegations of lies, however the tree ring data was always rather weak to say the least.
Yet using it is a fundamental part of generating the predicted runaway warming curve (which isn't happening, wonder why...) 

I disagree with that for reasons well rehearsed on here, the tree ring data is quite robust but does need care in its interpretation as tree rings are sensitive to other factors besides temperature during the growing season. The current warming rate is close to that predicted by models. Paleoclimate data only tells us about past climate not future climate.