"but have the good fortune of not having to comply with the rigid standards and peer review process applicable to mainstream climate science,"

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.

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.

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.

---

How many extinctions can be blamed on 0.5C of warming as opposed to other changes, man made 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?

---

How many extinctions can be blamed on 0.5C of warming as opposed to other changes, man made 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?

If I may jump in here GW.

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.

How many extinctions can be blamed on 0.5C of warming as opposed to other changes, man made 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?

If I may jump in here GW.

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.

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?.

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.

---

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.

Good point Dev in a perspective of our inward looking all important selves

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.

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.

Good point Dev in a perspective of our inward looking all important selves

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

The planet IMO. Takes no regard of this.

And I'm sorry but I fundamentally disagree. Again, look up the passenger pigeon. Further to that, look how much mass we move (more than geology does), look how much energy we consume, how much of the fresh water we control. Our influnece is vast - but I do agree if you don't see that you'll not see the problem...

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 can accept 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.

Good point Dev in a perspective of our inward looking all important selves

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

The planet IMO. Takes no regard of this.

And I'm sorry but I fundamentally disagree. Again, look up the passenger pigeon. Further to that, look how much mass we move (more than geology does), look how much energy we consume, how much of the fresh water we control. Our influnece is vast - but I do agree if you don't see that you'll not see the problem...

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 can accept that.

I think we have a balance there Dev.

Mind you, we control very little of anything in the big picture of things other than things we think we can control.

IE:The climate of a planet.We might have influenced it a tad over the years here and there like other animals but we will never control it.

I think there lies the Hoax.

As for the rest ,we can make a difference.

Yup! we'll never 'control' climate (as mother N. does) but we do impact upon it.

We're not the only organism to have wrought changes on our planet.......check out who gave us this much oxygen......

---

Yup! we'll never 'control' climate (as mother N. does) but we do impact upon it.

We're not the only organism to have wrought changes on our planet.......check out who gave us this much oxygen......

I am aware of the line you are taking GW and appreciate your point.It took a long time to poison the atomoshere with O2.

CO2 as the main climate driver is a factored ,modeled political Hoax imo.

I would be happy to blame CO2 for climate change but show me the proof.Not some jumped up theory supported by selected ipcc scientists.Let's not beat around the bush ,they are employed.

This whole farce thing is driven by money imho.(THE COLLAPSE OF THE CARBON MARKET IS IT'S DEATH KNELL)and before anybody starts???,my opinion is my own, I am not watts or iceage influenced or biased towards warmists or coolist blog sites

Time to get back to Earth and deal with the real issues and stop wasting time on this silly HOAX..

btw. Gray. (Hope you and your crew are well)

 

 

 

Yup! we'll never 'control' climate (as mother N. does) but we do impact upon it.

We're not the only organism to have wrought changes on our planet.......check out who gave us this much oxygen......

I am aware of the line you are taking GW and appreciate your point.It took a long time to poison the atomoshere with O2.

CO2 as the main climate driver is a factored ,modeled political Hoax imo.

I would be happy to blame CO2 for climate change but show me the proof.Not some jumped up theory supported by selected ipcc scientists.Let's not beat around the bush ,they are employed.

This whole farce thing is driven by money imho.(THE COLLAPSE OF THE CARBON MARKET IS IT'S DEATH KNELL)and before anybody starts???,my opinion is my own, I am not watts or iceage influenced or biased towards warmists or coolist blog sites

Time to get back to Earth and deal with the real issues and stop wasting time on this silly HOAX..

btw. Gray. (Hope you and your crew are well)

 

 

 

Good post AIMSIR, I too get fed up of accusations  of being influenced by Watts and the rest. The fact is I very rarely visit these sites, as I find a lot of the comments as political as a lot of the AGW sites. I like to think for myself, and not be influenced by ideologies!

Yup! we'll never 'control' climate (as mother N. does) but we do impact upon it.

We're not the only organism to have wrought changes on our planet.......check out who gave us this much oxygen......

I am aware of the line you are taking GW and appreciate your point.It took a long time to poison the atomoshere with O2.

CO2 as the main climate driver is a factored ,modeled political Hoax imo.

I would be happy to blame CO2 for climate change but show me the proof.Not some jumped up theory supported by selected ipcc scientists.Let's not beat around the bush ,they are employed.

This whole farce thing is driven by money imho.(THE COLLAPSE OF THE CARBON MARKET IS IT'S DEATH KNELL)and before anybody starts???,my opinion is my own, I am not watts or iceage influenced or biased towards warmists or coolist blog sites

Time to get back to Earth and deal with the real issues and stop wasting time on this silly HOAX..

btw. Gray. (Hope you and your crew are well)

Aim, you are entitled to your opinion.

I do think people using words like hoax leaves others with that classic dilemma - respond in kind or let the slurr (because to people like me it IS a slurr (be it your opinion or not)) to call what I know to be true a hoax. CO2 is (that's IS) a ghg with a well known and understood effect. You might as well call the water vapour effect a hoax. Is that proof enough? No I don't think it is, and tbph, I can't see there is anything that might sway a view of the GH effect like yours.

Anyway, I ask you, what should I do? Respond in kind or let the slurr pass? Put my opinion as forcefuly as you do? Sometimes I do, but I'd rather debate without the emotion, rhetoric and invective - honest

I do know that the science wont change your mind (for the reasons you've given) but can you at least stop using such languge towards other people's views? You are one (I know the others who definitely wont) here who might respond to such a request

Please.

---

I worry less and less about sharing my 'understandings' with others these days. I think we are finding ourselves in a 'Win,Win' situation where the folk who call 'Hoax' won't find themselves taxed for it and those who see it occurring will get their 'definitive' climate event that will bring home the clear and present danger we live with.

Cancun will bring more promises but no 'agreements' that will be acted upon.China will continue to grow ,along with all the developing nations , and CO2 will track well ahead of the TAR4 Worse case scenario plot.

The 'naysayers' have won and will bring us to the next stage in AGW......it will be a joy to see such massed 'back-peddling' once the climate catastrophe is upon us and folk ask 'why' we didn't act to offset it's worse impacts.

"We thought it was a Hoax" they'll say.........Ho Hum

---

Time to get back to Earth and deal with the real issues and stop wasting time on this silly HOAX..

Well if it's a hoax, the perpetrator is long in his grave!  Unless of course it's a conspiracy like the Da Vinci Code with thousands and thousands of people involved over the past 2 centuries?  But in that case, why? 

 

---

An article in Aftenposten today shows that a new study amongst Norwegians points to a major downturn in public belief about AGW. The figures show 51% believe people are having an impact on climate and the other 49% do not subsribe to that notion.

The article says that the figure was previously much higher in favour of AGW but recent years has seen support for the IPCC and AGW steeply fall.

It isn't a case of this year's cold autumn and winter having an influence because the study was made over several months from back in the summer.

The AGW lobby did clearly state that snow and cold would almost become a thing of the past. These claims should never have been passed as they were based on limited facts and knowledge. Bad move.... for the AGW lobby that is....

 

---

Cancun will bring more promises but no 'agreements' that will be acted upon.

Yes.  Because everyone wants everyone else to act, but for themselves not to need to, or to have to do less.

 

It's like a bunch of kids watching a girl drown because they all know that as soon as one of them dives into the river to save her, the others will all pinch his marbles ......

 

 

(not that I think curbing CO2 emissions is our first priority when it comes to climate change - we might be better letting the girl drown and instead act to prevent anyone else falling in)

---