Well put Stephen, I see your work getting increasing attention.
We're lucky to have you post here.

Stephen, I do agree with you about alarmists.

There are far to many alarmists running about shouting 'commie', or 'socialist' or 'greenie' or 'terrorist' whenever any data they don't like is published and also alarmists simply trying to frighten people with talk of frauds, hoaxes and scams.

I also agree with you about the UK weather, which is, atm, far far too cold for my liking (and a good deal colder than years of the not to distant past). But, I'm sure (like me) you're also aware we live on one small part of the planet and wouldn't by trying to say that because it's colder here the planet is also colder.

Thank you, It's hard to discern whether I am making any progress.

Devonian,

Thank you despite the sarcasm. There are unwise extremists on both sides. As regards extrapolating from Western Europe to the globe I am careful about that and really do not think your comment is justified.

There is plenty of evidence that the greater loopiness of the jets (and the consequent more equatorwards average positioning) is being experienced elsewhere in the northern hemisphere and in the southern hemisphere too.

The issue is the net balance of the global energy budget overall. That must include input to and output from the oceans. I have suggested how changes in solar activity can affect energy input to the oceans by shifting the jets. Perversely that involves a quiet sun actually warming the mesosphere and stratosphere but it will take a while for that to become generally accepted.

I think we all have to be content to wait and see.

If 2011 is not markedly cooler than the other years of this century then I expect you will evolve another set of theories to explain why it still cannot be AGW.  I'll make a diary note to re-start this discussion later next year.  I'm sure you will argue for more time if 2011 continues relatively warm, which rather sums up the debate, i.e. those who don't accept the science will simply continue to find reasons to remain in denial.

At what point would you accept that AGW is real, I wonder?

Just in passing, I find your 'holier-than-thou' comments about authoritarianism distasteful.  You might want to think about the circumstances that create totalitarian/authoritarian societies.  It is far from inconceivable that the very inaction that you argue in favour of woudl result, if you are wrong, in exactly that which you despise.

Only if a good reason is available. Actually I did say that I expected 2011 to be cooler than 2010 not necessarily cooler than the other years of the century so please do not surreptititously move the goalposts. Climate change is a slow and irregular process.

"You might want to think about the circumstances that create totalitarian/authoritarian societies."

Usually it is economic hardship. If you provoke economic hardship by rationing energy supplies by price before it becomes necessary from a genuine (rather than manipualted) lack of supply then you will be following a well trodden path.

I will accept AGW as real when we see a continuing rise in tropospheric temperatures despite several years of a quiet sun and negative ocean temperatures. However UHI effects need to be properly excluded and all attempts at adjustment and so called homogenisation need to be stopped. The trouble is that a lot of raw data has already been lost or destroyed so that raises the bar for alarmists somewhat.

Another indicator would be re colonisation of Greenland with successful agriculture similar to that experienced during the MWP.

We agree on this point.....  Of course, however, we will disagree about what might bring about economic hardship.   Food shortages and/or increased migration caused by climate change would be triggers (never mind fiscal mis-management....)

As regards temperatures, I am not moving the goalposts - 2011 'slightly cooler than 2010' is hardly much of a hurdle, given the size of the current La Nina and the relatively quiet sun.  I was expecting something a little more ambitious from you given your confident assertions.

You see, I'm quite humble after all.

It's a real pity that you won't accept the same general principle when it comes to AGW....

"Humble but misguided" is an interesting epitaph....

So AGW is a secondary mechanism on short term outcomes ?

Fine by me. We have a couple of hundred years to find economic alternatives to fossil fuels.

Note that 100 years ago the largest environmental problem for western cities was the potential accumulation of horse dung.

YOU should be more humble in the face of history and accept the power for good of minimally fettered human freedom.

Get out of our way. We can do better than you for humanity, the natural world and for the environment generally.

Fearful pronouncers of doom are the problem more than the solution.

Hear hear!!!

Good grief - deliberate misinterpretation to add to your modest skill set.  Impressive.

You know exactly to what I was referring.

"Get out of our way" has brought western civilisation to what level of progress exactly?  The proven ability to plunder the planet, destroy habitats, wipe out species of plants and animals - all in the pursuit of what exactly?   We demonstrate an inability to look beyond our selfish short-term interests.

I resent immeasurably your allegation that I want central state control.  I have said nothing of the sort and this repeated allegation says more about your thought processes and prejudices than mine. You seem to have something bordering on a fetish or paranoia about this.  You're not Sarah Palin writing under an assumed name I hope?

Your statement "We can do better than you for humanity, the natural world and for the environment generally." is demonstrably a fallacy. Either you are being blinded by your own PR or you really are just wholly ignorant of what is happening to the planet. 

Blithe assumptions that we will find solutions are the problem. 

Oh really?  Why do you think that - preferably in scientific and not political terms....

Its not based on science. I just don't have a good feeling about it all - it just doesn't sit right with me. An inconvenient truth may very well be a very convenient falsehood. I'm probably wrong but my instinct tells me that there is something not quite right about all this man made AGW stuff. Its just my feeling/opinion - its not based on anything.

Thanks for that honest assessment.

I appreciate that it's not a straightforward subject.  It is not many years ago that I was largely oblivious to the AGW issue and, given my preference for cold winters, it is not something that I want to happen.

However, the more you read about this (in the right places, i.e. looking at the data and the science) the more it becomes apparent that the world is warming and that our activities are at least partly responsible.

Where the debate breaks down is where sceptics mount their arguments around economic or political agendas or where there is a descent into name calling and accusations of bias or worse.

In essence we have reached an area of consensus with most people here that there is underlying AGW but there are natural cycles that will at times compensate for or exceed the AGW warming.

Sadly we have also had people questioning the data or alleging that the data has been materially altered - which is clearly nonsense.

Finally we have people like Stephen who have their own construct of how the planet's climate system works but have the good fortune of not having to comply with the rigid standards and peer review process applicable to mainstream climate science,

I forgot to mention that the other line of attack is accusations that certain people are predicting 'dramatic' warming - whatever that might be.  I am accused of this although my position is that the warming will have effects and as the climate system is complex should we really be tampering with something about which we still have things to learn?

Fair comment Gandalf. At least we know where we all stand. The science and the data could be kosher. I've just lost pretty much all faith in the 'establishment', so whatever I am told to believe I'm naturally sceptical about it - that is my problem.

If only.

As it happens I'm having to deal with and adapt to blog based peer review from some very experienced scientists including Leif Svalgaard who is very harsh taskmaster and lots of others who see their own pet theories threatened by mine.

Conventional peer review is a cake walk in comparison.

I lost faith in the so called 'sceptic' establishment years ago. I'm naturally sceptical about them.

Explain to me (again) the level of extinctions we are seeing during this 'natural' warm spell and then lay out the evidence for past extinction episodes during past 'natural warm spells'.

To keep it simple let us just focus on the Harlequin tree frogs eh?

I will change my entire understanding of what I am living through should you bring forth this evidence for me.

How many extinctions can be blamed on 0.5C of warming as opposed to other changes, manmade or natural.

I'm sorry 4WD , are we not looking at whether man made impacts on our world are real or a hoax here? Or is it just 'warming' that is to be investigated with other man made global impacts to be cast aside as if they were nought?

Are we capable of impacting our world , 4WD, or not?

Do you concider humans to be the biggest influance on the nature of this planet?.

That to me,seems to be introverted to the extreme.

You might come around to the fact that there is no solid scientific proof of manmade global warming.

If there was we would do something about it.

We are not stupid as a species.

I think those who think we're not a huge influence on this planet need to look up the sad, sad, story of the passenger pigeon. Infact, easier than that, just look out of the window at the environment - it's been transformed by us and our eyes need to be shut not to see that.

Look out our window is correct Dev.
How much do you see of a city from a small window?.

Oh, blimey, you're not going to start arguing over window sizes are you

Just look out, or even look, and you can see our effect almost everywhere - that's my point.

Our influence is notable as far as we can see and feel.

The planet IMO. Takes no regard of this.

I do agree with local climate change(no hoax)

The Hoax is Imo. is the political slant and hyjacking/ramping of a loose agw theory.

No disrespect towards your opinions btw.I do not claim to be infallible.