Odd then, isn't it, how silent you were when people like me were branded as green terriorsts, or harridans, or environmentalists. I guess you just missed those posts? Yes, that'll be it

That would have been when Hansen or some of our own home grown green terrorists were playing up cutting fences, trying to shut down powers stations.
All counter productive as it makes you look like evironmentalists
(actually I only ever noticed you make that hilarious joke)

And my word given in a post higher up. Do you accept that?

---

Firstly guys "my position" equates to my opinion, am I allowed that?

Secondly, the folk who deliberately spread dis-information /confusion to a population (that are wanting better news than science can bring) are effectively robbing us of the opportunity to make a difference that would spare millions from the fate that procrastination condemns them to (or is climate change suddenly 'benign'?)

Thirdly , Doh! ,yes Austrian and 'Yes' he murdered my grandpa Ruben in one of his camps.  

If I am to have grandchildren then I suspect I know what they will think of the folk who effectively robbed them of the planet we all know and enjoy.

I know my own father was wracked with guilt (prior to his death) about what he had seen us do to the planet in the name of "creature comforts and profit" ( esp. 07's Arctic melt which floored him) as he had worked in Industry all of his life never suspecting the greater costs (other than his own personal costs to his health).

I'm afraid I must stand by my opinion ( and not be cowed by those I fear "protest too much") but I am deeply sorry if it hurts those it is not intended to scald and for that you have my apologies.

At the end of the day Science did not start this 'climate war' but became a victim of it. I believe it is a battle we must engage in to protect/save the hurt of the generations to come ( and all the creatures we will consign to extinction)that will suffer so if we allow the deniers/confusers/procrastinators to stall our actions for very much longer.

The only 'hoax' ongoing is the extreme denier-sphere praying on those who would wish to be away from our current peril.

---

Just had a word with my Uncle whose extensive family was all wiped out in a concentration camp because he was the only one (he was about ten at the time) for whom they could afford the cost of transport (my mother is Jewish but my father is Methodist).

He say, beware of big state, it kills people.

So I am somewhat concerned about the 'denier' label but also concerned about big state solutions to perceived problems.

Opinions are fine but proposed solutions to possibly imagined problems that are the subject of political manipulation should be VERY carefully analysed.

Generally speaking, if a perceived problem is regarded as 'settled' and authoritarian solutions are proposed then it's time to find somewhere else to live. I don't know what one should do if the situation arises in a global context. Just stand up , say your piece, and pray would seem to be about it.

Generally speaking, if a perceived problem is regarded as 'settled' and authoritarian solutions are proposed then it's time to find somewhere else to live. I don't know what one should do if the situation arises in a global context. Just stand up , say your piece, and pray would seem to be about it.

All well and good with 'percieved problems' and this ,surely ? ,is where the problem resides. This is not (for most all of Science') a perceived threat but a real and present danger.

If you avoided the 'blogsphere' I think you would be hard pressed to find any concensus that the science is not good and the tenants not proven (if not fully understood?).

Churchill had a time whipping up the perceived threat throughout the 30's but once the bombs were falling we .as a nation, were solidly behind him.

Must it be this way today? Must we be 'midst catastrophe' before we accept the 'clear and present danger'?

I posted earlier many folk who accept the science will admit that (in their weaker ,more frustrated moments) they wish for the first of the great AGW catastrophes to occur to help underscore the 'clear and present danger' we face. Again I'd remind folk that our autonomic nervous sysatem is only hardwired to react to perceived threats (Sabre toothed cat getting ready to pounce) and not a 'long term' danger (ice sheet melt) it is our frontal lobes ,our intellect, that deals with the 'bigger picture' and has helped place humanity where it is today (we're not the 'clever ,clever ape for now't!).

So it would seem (yet again) we go full circle and those who will not accept mainstream science will deny the danger whilst our best minds continue to ring the alarm bells as loudly as they can to warn society of the upcoming dangers we are creating for our selves and our planet.

---

I'm informed by observations, personal experience and personal judgement, not by the blogosphere and not by 'experts' who cannot create a good enough model to predict anything that actually happens.

The alarmist viewpoint does not chime with the facts. History shows that there is currently nothing unprecedented going on. Day to day observations tell me that the warming spell has now ceased and we are on the cusp of a natural cooling spell.

I've been interested in climate science and weather for nearly 60 years. The current fuss is not consistent with what I have seen and read over that period. It has all the characteristics of a 'convenient' perceived threat which has become subject to political manipulation.

Be that as it may. A few years of continued observation with new methods will kill it stone dead in my view and I'm content to wait and see.

In the meantime things that I started putting in public view some three years ago are holding up well and are entering the mainstream of the blogosphere if not yet the mainstream proper but even there lots of papers are coming out that confirm aspects of my earlier work.

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

---

I'm informed by observations, personal experience and personal judgement, not by the blogosphere and not by 'experts' who cannot create a good enough model to predict anything that actually happens.

The alarmist viewpoint does not chime with the facts. History shows that there is currently nothing unprecedented going on. Day to day observations tell me that the warming spell has now ceased and we are on the cusp of a natural cooling spell.

I've been interested in climate science and weather for nearly 60 years. The current fuss is not consistent with what I have seen and read over that period. It has all the characteristics of a 'convenient' perceived threat which has become subject to political manipulation.

Be that as it may. A few years of continued observation with new methods will kill it stone dead in my view and I'm content to wait and see.

In the meantime things that I started putting in public view some three years ago are holding up well and are entering the mainstream of the blogosphere if not yet the mainstream proper but even there lots of papers are coming out that confirm aspects of my earlier work.

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.

---

four,

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'm informed by observations, personal experience and personal judgement, not by the blogosphere and not by 'experts' who cannot create a good enough model to predict anything that actually happens.

The alarmist viewpoint does not chime with the facts. History shows that there is currently nothing unprecedented going on. Day to day observations tell me that the warming spell has now ceased and we are on the cusp of a natural cooling spell.

I've been interested in climate science and weather for nearly 60 years. The current fuss is not consistent with what I have seen and read over that period. It has all the characteristics of a 'convenient' perceived threat which has become subject to political manipulation.

Be that as it may. A few years of continued observation with new methods will kill it stone dead in my view and I'm content to wait and see.

In the meantime things that I started putting in public view some three years ago are holding up well and are entering the mainstream of the blogosphere if not yet the mainstream proper but even there lots of papers are coming out that confirm aspects of my earlier work.

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.

---

"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"

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.

"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"

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.

 

---

I'm growing increasingly confident about the primary mechanisms but remain appropriately cautious about the effect of secondary mechanisms on short term outcomes.

You see, I'm quite humble after all.

I'm growing increasingly confident about the primary mechanisms but remain appropriately cautious about the effect of secondary mechanisms on short term outcomes.

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.

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!!!

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.

 

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. 

 

 

---

 

Hear hear!!!

 

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

---

 

Hear hear!!!

 

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.

 

Hear hear!!!

 

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?

---

 

Hear hear!!!

 

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.