The harder the Alarmists try ...

[WeatherRusty]

you're kidding yourself if you don't believe it's a PR problem. Please go back to the very first post with the poll results. If the science is settled, why does the majority opinion of the public disagree with the AGW view?? It has nothing to do with lack of solutions. The people don't believe in AGW period.

My impression is that most people who do not already hold a strong opinion, for whatever reason, simply don't know what to think. They are confused by the ongoing public debate. People have been lead to believe they can not trust the media or even the scientists. The misinformation machine has done a great job....congratulations! The science says one thing rather firmly, yet the public doesn't accept it. Wonderful. I hope you're proud of yourselves.

[Strongbad]

I'm not sure about India, but I know China is investing more in green energy than any other country in the world. They have to in order to survive. They know they can't last forever on coal and are already looking for alternatives.

Come on Valk...really!?!?! You are wasting your time trying to defend China. Maybe I should refer you to videos of Beijing and the air quality during the most recent Olympics.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jun/19/china.usnews

[The_Global_Warmer]

You know.....I have actually read most of your post in every thread (except the long ones where you tend to ramble) and while I don't agree with you, I still had some respect for your opinion. Now I have no respect for you and I have put you on the ignore list ........and it takes a lot to get on my ignore list. You seem to be on a crusade and it has clouded your judgement. Trying to say that deniers are computer generated "bots". That's got to be the most absurd post I have ever read on any weather board.

I never said they were bots.

You did.

I am glad you ignored me, I have never read one post that you gave any opinion. i have never once trashed you.

I just said that in my 5-6 years here we have seen this now the entire time and its the exact same thing.

I am sorry you don't understand what that represents and it doesn't have to be bots.

[Strongbad]

I never said they were bots.

You did.

I am glad you ignored me, I have never read one post that you gave any opinion. i have never once trashed you.

I just said that in my 5-6 years here we have seen this now the entire time and its the exact same thing.

I am sorry you don't understand what that represents and it doesn't have to be bots.

Dude, you are making it worse for yourself. You need to go back to what you were best at: predicting sea ice drops during the middle of the summer. The posts about people like me ruining the forums for most people are bogus. You have no proof that someone as insignificant as me or any of the random posters here has any affect on who stays and who goes. If they leave, it's their fault.

Seriously though, you type up these long, hot-air balloon soap box speeches that none of us care to read. Keep it simple.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Dude, you are making it worse for yourself. You need to go back to what you were best at: predicting sea ice drops during the middle of the summer. The posts about people like me ruining the forums for most people are bogus. You have no proof that someone as insignificant as me or any of the random posters here has any affect on who stays and who goes. If they leave, it's their fault.

Seriously though, you type up these long, hot-air balloon soap box speeches that none of us care to read. Keep it simple.

I am now one of the best on this site and many sites at making sea ice forecasts. Which is not easy. Your not. Why is that? Your apparently just as informed as me. So tell me what it is?

Encase you don't know. And I know you do. We used to be on a board called Eastern which is still operational.

And since I got there. The exact same people have been there are now here. Except the countless Pro Mets and other great contributors who left because of the countless empty faces who would randomly pop up and spam the board with garbage. So many have gone..I can compile a list to remind everyone how many we lost because of this.

[Strongbad]

I am now one of the best on this site and many sites at making sea ice forecasts. Which is not easy. Your not. Why is that? Your apparently just as informed as me. So tell me what it is?

Two things: to the post above, where you quoted me saying "you smell", you have to stop taking yourself seriously ALL the time and understand a stupid joke when you see one. The second, why are you so proud of yourself? Your grammar, syntax, and vocabulary are putrid. MENSA needs more from you.

As for the point of this thread, nobody has yet offered a convincing post on how to win the public back to AGW without the use of force.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Two things: to the post above, where you quoted me saying "you smell", you have to stop taking yourself seriously ALL the time and understand a stupid joke when you see one. The second, why are you so proud of yourself? Your grammar, syntax, and vocabulary are putrid. MENSA needs more from you.

As for the point of this thread, nobody has yet offered a convincing post on how to win the public back to AGW without the use of force.

Why don't we debate reality. Since your buddy Warm and Sunny won't answer.

Tell me how the AMO effects Arctic Basin Ocean Temperatures at the surface and below.

[Strongbad]

Why don't we debate reality. Since your buddy Warm and Sunny won't answer.

Tell me how the AMO effects Arctic Basin Ocean Temperatures at the surface and below.

When I get back from having a life, I promise to try my best and answer this in more detail. If someone else has not already...

[skierinvermont]

Come on Valk...really!?!?! You are wasting your time trying to defend China. Maybe I should refer you to videos of Beijing and the air quality during the most recent Olympics.

http://www.guardian....19/china.usnews

Regardless of their pollution problems, it is a fact that China is investing far more heavily than we are in renewables. They have given over 50 billion in guaranteed loans to their solar industry alone, along with building the largest solar farms in the world. The Chinese government set out on a very clear mission of dominating the global solar market, a mission they have largely succeeded at. As the solar industry continues to grow and become more profitable in the future, Chinese firms will benefit because they have cornered the market and the technology.

Meanwhile.. back in washington.. political deadlock continues..

[tacoman25]

I feel the 'skeptics' are hurting their cause, too. Why? Because for many of them it's no longer about the science of it, but the politics of it. I've seen way too many skeptics do the following:

1. Claim that the Earth is cooling (which is patently false)
2. Claim that CO2 level increases are not by man
3. Make fun of Al Gore (he has nothing to do with the actual science)
4. Claim that "because it was cold or snowed" there is no Global Warming
5. Claim that "because the US is cold" there is no Global Warming
6. Claim that scientists said there was an Ice Age coming in the 70s (which isn't true)
7. Claim that GCR are responsible for the current warming (when no conclusive evidence has been found and none will be for 5-10 years either way)
8. Claim that man has zero net impact on the climate because the Earth is so big (which cannot be true because we emit things into the atmosphere)
9. Claim that trillions are spent on AGW government funding (which is not true)
10. Claim that the money is clearly being made on the AGW side (which is not true)
11. Claim that there is no consensus (which is not true)
12. Claim that because x scientist said y, there is no consensus
13. Claim that because x scientists signed petition y, there is no consensus
14. Claim that 'climategate' proved AGW was a hoax (which is not true)
15. Claim that 'hide the decline' referred to global cooling, when it referred to northern hemisphere tree ring data
16. Claim that because natural cycles exist, there cannot be man made changes (I'm not sure how this makes sense)
17. Claim that it's all part of a natural cycle, when no known natural cycle exists that works on this time scale
18. Cite scientific papers claiming they say one thing, when in fact they say something else (the paper about the North Atlantic Current, The 'NASA' Paper fiasco, the paper cited by GraceToYou in this thread, etc.)
19. Start blogs and write news articles instead of going to school and going into climate science
20. Listen to blogs and news articles instead of listening to climate scientists

Once skeptics stop doing the above, it'll help their cause, too.

After all, AGW could be wrong, but for it to be wrong the skeptics need to know what the arguments are, what they aren't, what science says, what it doesn't say, what the consensus actually is, and how to actually research to find out what is going on.

Oh, and they have to do one thing I've never seen then own up to - they have to openly admit that there is a possibility that they are wrong.

Black and white with no gray in between! If only life were so simple.

[valkhorn]

I agree with this statement. No matter what contributions we have made or will continue to, you will simply not believe it due to who is releasing the information. For this, I see no reason in debating you either. Also, you smell.

Why do you keep avoiding this statement:

"I'm still waiting on Strongbad, Gracetoyou, and Sunny and Warm to show what evidence they would consider and how their views might be wrong."

So, what evidence would you listen to? How are you falsifiable? How might your position be wrong?

[valkhorn]

Come on Valk...really!?!?! You are wasting your time trying to defend China. Maybe I should refer you to videos of Beijing and the air quality during the most recent Olympics.

http://www.guardian....19/china.usnews

That doesn't at all refute my point. Yes China pollutes pretty badly. However, they are the biggest investor in green technology:

http://news.cnet.com...0004323-54.html

China may arguably be the world's biggest polluter, but it seems the country is also the most serious investor in green tech. A third of its economic recovery package was spent on green-technology investment in the form of high-speed rail trains and infrastructure, wind energy, solar energy, and energy-efficient lighting. It equates to about 3 percent of China's GDP (gross domestic product), according to a new United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) book released Wednesday.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com...l#ixzz1YY1W7AfU

I really don't understand your logic. Again, how might you be shown wrong? Are you open to changing your mind? What evidence would you concede to?

[bobbutts]

I feel the 'skeptics' are hurting their cause, too. Why? Because for many of them it's no longer about the science of it, but the politics of it. I've seen way too many skeptics do the following:

1. Claim that the Earth is cooling (which is patently false)
2. Claim that CO2 level increases are not by man
3. Make fun of Al Gore (he has nothing to do with the actual science)
4. Claim that "because it was cold or snowed" there is no Global Warming
5. Claim that "because the US is cold" there is no Global Warming
6. Claim that scientists said there was an Ice Age coming in the 70s (which isn't true)
7. Claim that GCR are responsible for the current warming (when no conclusive evidence has been found and none will be for 5-10 years either way)
8. Claim that man has zero net impact on the climate because the Earth is so big (which cannot be true because we emit things into the atmosphere)
9. Claim that trillions are spent on AGW government funding (which is not true)
10. Claim that the money is clearly being made on the AGW side (which is not true)
11. Claim that there is no consensus (which is not true)
12. Claim that because x scientist said y, there is no consensus
13. Claim that because x scientists signed petition y, there is no consensus
14. Claim that 'climategate' proved AGW was a hoax (which is not true)
15. Claim that 'hide the decline' referred to global cooling, when it referred to northern hemisphere tree ring data
16. Claim that because natural cycles exist, there cannot be man made changes (I'm not sure how this makes sense)
17. Claim that it's all part of a natural cycle, when no known natural cycle exists that works on this time scale
18. Cite scientific papers claiming they say one thing, when in fact they say something else (the paper about the North Atlantic Current, The 'NASA' Paper fiasco, the paper cited by GraceToYou in this thread, etc.)
19. Start blogs and write news articles instead of going to school and going into climate science
20. Listen to blogs and news articles instead of listening to climate scientists

Once skeptics stop doing the above, it'll help their cause, too.

After all, AGW could be wrong, but for it to be wrong the skeptics need to know what the arguments are, what they aren't, what science says, what it doesn't say, what the consensus actually is, and how to actually research to find out what is going on.

Oh, and they have to do one thing I've never seen then own up to - they have to openly admit that there is a possibility that they are wrong.

I think my criticism of Gore is reasonable and doesn't fall under teasing.

If you're calling me out for these other, you're not in the ballpark. I agree with you.

I'm skeptical science's ability to predict the future well. I'm not so delusional to think that I'm going to do a better job myself. Pen me in for high uncertainty

[WeatherRusty]

Two things: to the post above, where you quoted me saying "you smell", you have to stop taking yourself seriously ALL the time and understand a stupid joke when you see one. The second, why are you so proud of yourself? Your grammar, syntax, and vocabulary are putrid. MENSA needs more from you.

As for the point of this thread, nobody has yet offered a convincing post on how to win the public back to AGW without the use of force.

As long as the position of the Republican Party continues to suggest that AGW is a hoax there can be no convincing it's followers of anything other than the party line. As long as environmentalists are demonized by political conservatives with threats of abolishing the EPA, there can be no convincing their followers that the environment needs to be protected. As long as stratospheric ozone depletion by CFCs, acid rain from industrial pollution and the poisoning bird species by DDT are considered hoaxes there can be no convincing.

Try telling those addicted to cigarette smoke that their habit could kill them. How many of them can you convince....especially when scientists in the pay of the tobacco companies assure the addicted that everything will be fine...don't listen to those fruit cake government scientists. They have no proof.

We are addicted to fossil fuels and chopping down forests.

[Strongbad]

As long as the position of the Republican Party continues to suggest that AGW is a hoax there can be no convincing it's followers of anything other than the party line. As long as environmentalists are demonized by political conservatives with threats of abolishing the EPA, there can be no convincing their followers that the environment needs to be protected. As long as stratospheric ozone depletion by CFCs, acid rain from industrial pollution and the poisoning bird species by DDT are considered hoaxes there can be no convincing.

Try telling those addicted to cigarette smoke that their habit could kill them. How many of them can you convince....especially when scientists in the pay of the tobacco companies assure the addicted that everything will be fine...don't listen to those fruit cake government scientists. They have no proof.

We are addicted to fossil fuels and chopping down forests.

What you must understand is that this sounds loony to anyone not on the Left. This was a political point and is also one that is very condescending towards people. If you really think they can't make up their own minds and only follow party leaders, just remember that they think the same of you.

As for making a convincing argument, I disagree. If AGW were a Real threat to the status quo, people would react. Doomsday predictions come and go.

[valkhorn]

What you must understand is that this sounds loony to anyone not on the Left. This was a political point and is also one that is very condescending towards people. If you really think they can't make up their own minds and only follow party leaders, just remember that they think the same of you.

As for making a convincing argument, I disagree. If AGW were a Real threat to the status quo, people would react. Doomsday predictions come and go.

It seems you can't answer my question. How is it that your point of view might be falsified? Are you willing to admit you might be wrong? What evidence can convince you?

Everyone who accepts AGW that I know of can answer this. Why can't you?

Also, I'm on the left but a lot of moderates agree that the political platform of the GOP in terms of being anti-science drives away a lot of moderates and potential conservatives. The platform may not be what every voter thinks, but it is how the GOP unilaterally acts - especially now. In the last few years, they have become so unilateral and so unwilling to compromise that they have broken the record of fillibusters, and dropped congress's approval rating down to a meager 12%.

It's like the GOP's motto should be "We can prove government can't do anything by sabotaging government"

Also, you keep making a huge strawman argument. The scientific consensus is troubling but by no means alarmist. Why do you keep painting a picture that is completely incorrect from reality?

[valkhorn]

good ****ing grief.

Watts, a known provocateur, posted an out of context section from a poll which seems to show that Americans don't care about global warming.

if anyone in this thread knows ONE thing about polling, it has to be that questions in that format are always TOPICAL and have a context. my God, look at it again in the first post: all of a sudden the Gulf oil spill fell off the radar. why is that do you think? why do you think the economy and jobs are suddenly high priority issues for Americans in general, open-ended polling?

either the OP is entirely ignorant about polling or he is 100% troll.

It's just someone who wants to stir up false controversy. If they really had a point to make against AGW, why didn't they use any actual science?

[Quixotic1]

What you must understand is that this sounds loony to anyone not on the Left. This was a political point and is also one that is very condescending towards people. If you really think they can't make up their own minds and only follow party leaders, just remember that they think the same of you.

As for making a convincing argument, I disagree. If AGW were a Real threat to the status quo, people would react. Doomsday predictions come and go.

Not because it's not a threat. It's about immediacy. Like just about everything else that goes on in this world, the view is short, not long.

[Strongbad]

It seems you can't answer my question. How is it that your point of view might be falsified? Are you willing to admit you might be wrong? What evidence can convince you?

Everyone who accepts AGW that I know of can answer this. Why can't you?

Also, I'm on the left but a lot of moderates agree that the political platform of the GOP in terms of being anti-science drives away a lot of moderates and potential conservatives. The platform may not be what every voter thinks, but it is how the GOP unilaterally acts - especially now. In the last few years, they have become so unilateral and so unwilling to compromise that they have broken the record of fillibusters, and dropped congress's approval rating down to a meager 12%.

It's like the GOP's motto should be "We can prove government can't do anything by sabotaging government"

Also, you keep making a huge strawman argument. The scientific consensus is troubling but by no means alarmist. Why do you keep painting a picture that is completely incorrect from reality?

So little of this has to do with the weather. I do not wish to debate politics with you, as by the looks of it, you may not know much about it in the first place.

My point of view? I will believe in Dangerous AGW only if a dramatic increase in Earth's temperature continues unabated starting now, as it seems we continue to release more CO2 without an Exponential increase in temps over the past decade. If however, we find out that there is an AGW affect, but that it is mostly helpful to our survival, I will say nothing needs to be done.

Otherwise, let's ask the same of you. What will convince you that man is not the cause for most of the global temperature increase over the past century? If you have no answer, that says something.

[WeatherRusty]

What you must understand is that this sounds loony to anyone not on the Left. This was a political point and is also one that is very condescending towards people. If you really think they can't make up their own minds and only follow party leaders, just remember that they think the same of you.

As for making a convincing argument, I disagree. If AGW were a Real threat to the status quo, people would react. Doomsday predictions come and go.

People are not sure whether AGW is a real threat or not. Uncertainty is the skeptic's greatest ally. People will not commit to anything they are not sure of.

AGW is not a doomsday prediction, but it is one of increasing difficulty and costly adaptation. This is going to happen to an extent whether we employ any mitigation at this point or not.

If my point was condescending then it also reflects the documented truth. That's how it is. People will defend their turf and that is to be expected. Most people are followers, very few of us are leaders. Just the way it is. That goes for all political positions along the spectrum.

Most people do not have any understanding of the science. It takes years of detailed study to become expert in a specialty like climate science. Therefor most people do not develop their opinion of AGW by individual scientific analysis, they do so by adopting the ideas of others.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I think my criticism of Gore is reasonable and doesn't fall under teasing.

If you're calling me out for these other, you're not in the ballpark. I agree with you.

I'm skeptical science's ability to predict the future well. I'm not so delusional to think that I'm going to do a better job myself. Pen me in for high uncertainty

I agree with you as well. I just looked for data on Greenlands 2011 summer melt season. And I came across some Atlas map scandal. I found that atlas mis interpreted data from the NSIDC and DMI and made a mistake with there map. So I looked at about a dozen pages and the comments were vile hateful vitrol with crazy absurdity about global warming.

Basically calling the NSIDC a scam. I find it scary how many people think it was intentional. I mean really? I also find things like people on WUWT posting the DMI 30% ice chart in bold caps saying the ice is recovering at record pace in the NH. I don't think he knew what the map really meant or that 30% ice is currently 3rd lowest on this date by less than 100K and obviously the 3rd lowest in the last century.

What it confusing is that the same folks who sit on blogs and forums I have never heard of or do not read because they have no affiliation with any credible source of science use the same data for sea ice we all do. They get the same info that says ice dangerously thin and volume has been decimated. There are dozens of bouys from many countries, corporates and private investors as well as ships, satellites, and real time expeditions by hundreds of scientists this summer in the arctic and 2010 that confirm of the remaining ice left nearly all of it is under 2 meters thick and most of that is around 1 meter or less. Which pretty clear just on modis images. We now have new published papers coming explaining the ice loss from winds in the 90s and now a more "rapid feedback" in the much warmer sea surface temps in the arctic basin which have nothing to do with the AMO and PDO. And more to do with MY ice being flushed out or melted out. Which means the arctic system has feed-backed on itself with many variables.

It is hard to say how it will balance it self out. saying the AMO will is like saying Co2 will melt it all out when it hits 420ppm, its not substantiated at all. Even though the so called "Alarmists" on this site spent most of there time studying the real factors in ice melt and generally agree on a 20-50 percent melt out from co2 forcing since the satellite era began. Or even since the melt started.

the point is we are very close to an ice free arctic or mostly ice free. Just by using our 45 years of satellite sea ice tracking data we know that we could get extremely close to this within a couple years or actually get there based on historic and more recent melt rates.

So we know that Co2 hasn't caused the arctic ice to melt out at this rate directly. And that possible short term variations are the cause or possible short term rapid feedback or maybe a longer term tipping point was met.

The thing is, no one I see is being intellectually dishonest. I talked about snow falling messing with the sensors and admitted that I was wrong and compromised on how much ice refroze. I had a bunch of people insulting me on a personal level hardcore over my objection of 200,000-300,000km2 of new ice forming. Which was true. There was already ice there that was either to thin to be caught on sensors or less then a 15% area. you can usually see this ice on Modis with white edges and more clear centers there is a whole lot of it in the Fram each year. It has become much more widespread over the arctic basin the last 5 years as the ice melt has accelerated. I was flamed hardcore for being wrong. Some guys who flamed me think CT's sea ice concentration map is a satellite image. We came to the conclusion that recently melted ice was filled with cold water and under the right conditions refroze at warmer then normal circumstances for actual new ice in the arctic basin. We also can confirm looking at the reanalysis of wind currents that an area of SLP moved through the arctic then and spread ice in two directions outward that helped expand this area as well. I didn't bother posting that because about 3-4 people would of called me crazy, grasping for straw, and more insanely put words in my mouth that I didn't type. That whole experience was crazy and really disappointed me. I have made several attempts to mend fences here with posters. But the majority are rude ***holes. I write apologies while others continue to be arrogant and condescending even when they are wrong time and time again. When we talk about the implications of an ice free arctic it's world war 3. It's not allowed. Even though we are at the end of the rope in ice to give before it ends up open water we can't talk about that or we are doomsdayers. I guess being an alarmist wasn't enough. now I am a doomsdayer. What the hell is that? its going to take an ice free arctic before we are allowed to talk about it and its implications without taking layers of abuse from people who can't keep up in the sea ice talks.

the Sea Ice thread was empty for about 2 weeks when it became clear the ice was melting out even under pretty benign conditions. At the same time the reports from all over the arctic came out about how thin the ice is. As soon as Jaxa stopped dropping and the arctic went cold. A horde of people came. Only one of them had the knowledge to really comment on why Bremen and Jaxa had different extents. Everyone knows I presented tons of good information that validates Bremen or at least says to split the difference and go with the NSIDC. Not a chance in hell. Of course not even though the ice is thin and cracked everywhere. I mean places in late August that consolidated from compaction actually cracked again just like last year because the water underneath and winds were to violent for the ice to stay together, so instead of large floes being in pieces the ice sheet shattered like a shattered car windshield. it is to "light" to withstand the pressures. So we have all this data showing the ice is in much worse conditions then 2007. We find out that Bremen uses the most advanced technology and jaxa doesn't and no matter what it's wrong or I am CRAAAZYYYY.

yet the people calling me crazy didn't know the difference between "data and algorithms". Priceless. This place is no longer people talking science.

Skiier posts about actual climate happenings and no one says a word. Other posts about politicians, mistakes, and the "public" perception of AGW and it blows up. it's time to clean this up and keep this about real science.

[The_Global_Warmer]

So little of this has to do with the weather. I do not wish to debate politics with you, as by the looks of it, you may not know much about it in the first place.

My point of view? I will believe in Dangerous AGW only if a dramatic increase in Earth's temperature continues unabated starting now, as it seems we continue to release more CO2 without an Exponential increase in temps over the past decade. If however, we find out that there is an AGW affect, but that it is mostly helpful to our survival, I will say nothing needs to be done.

Otherwise, let's ask the same of you. What will convince you that man is not the cause for most of the global temperature increase over the past century? If you have no answer, that says something.

You said you were coming back to explain to me how the AMO is responsible for the arctic basin temperatures....lets have it.

i am sure you are looking through charts and peer reviewed studies by scientists working in the arctic and coming up with ideas and good hard evidence of the AMO's role in the arctic.

Or searching the archives at some blog with a bunch blog comment reviewed work.

take your time.

[skierinvermont]

Asking what will prove AGW is wrong is like asking what would prove evolution wrong.

[Strongbad]

You said you were coming back to explain to me how the AMO is responsible for the arctic basin temperatures....lets have it.

i am sure you are looking through charts and peer reviewed studies by scientists working in the arctic and coming up with ideas and good hard evidence of the AMO's role in the arctic.

Or searching the archives at some blog with a bunch blog comment reviewed work.

take your time.

The sad thing, Friv, is that there is no need for me to do your homework for you. If you would like to learn more about the AMO, including it's affect on global temperatures, SSTs, and so on you can simply find out by doing a google search. If you would like to know how the AMO helps or hurts ice growth in the Arctic, once again you can search the term on your own. Every time I attach an article there will be an issue with it. For this reason, you're a big boy. Do the research yourself and maybe learn a little.

[The_Global_Warmer]

The sad thing, Friv, is that there is no need for me to do your homework for you. If you would like to learn more about the AMO, including it's affect on global temperatures, SSTs, and so on you can simply find out by doing a google search. If you would like to know how the AMO helps or hurts ice growth in the Arctic, once again you can search the term on your own. Every time I attach an article there will be an issue with it. For this reason, you're a big boy. Do the research yourself and maybe learn a little.

Why are you here just to post links about things you don't know about?

You sit here and tell us how AGW is wrong

You come and say the ice won't melt out but like there you were a complete noobie which is fine. I was at one time and I kept my mouth shut until learned more and I was made a fool a few times. I came here after seeing An Inconvenient Truth and was as blind as so many who come here from WUWT or some other bastion of science fiction.

It took me thousands of hours of devotion over 5 years of learning Meteorology and physics related to it as best I could before I could dive into my own analysis and ideas.

I don't take you serious because you clearly have little knowledge of meteorology and climate.

So how can you come here posting links to things you don't even understand yourself?

Because if you did you would post things and talk about them.

How many people go to MedHelp and tell Doctors that or people who study the medical field they are wrong? None.

How many people who don't know anything about sports go to sports forums arguing Don Mattingly was better than Pujols? none

How can you come here and insult people who know way more than you and the people who you get your info from and do so not even giving your own thoughts on the data?

The Bolded shows you have never spent a moment reading about "the amo".

[BeastFromTheEast]

Why are you here just to post links about things you don't know about?

You sit here and tell us how AGW is wrong

You come and say the ice won't melt out but like there you were a complete noobie which is fine. I was at one time and I kept my mouth shut until learned more and I was made a fool a few times. I came here after seeing An Inconvenient Truth and was as blind as so many who come here from WUWT or some other bastion of science fiction.

It took me thousands of hours of devotion over 5 years of learning Meteorology and physics related to it as best I could before I could dive into my own analysis and ideas.

I don't take you serious because you clearly have little knowledge of meteorology and climate.

So how can you come here posting links to things you don't even understand yourself?

Because if you did you would post things and talk about them.

How many people go to MedHelp and tell Doctors that or people who study the medical field they are wrong? None.

How many people who don't know anything about sports go to sports forums arguing Don Mattingly was better than Pujols? none

How can you come here and insult people who know way more than you and the people who you get your info from and do so not even giving your own thoughts on the data?

The Bolded shows you have never spent a moment reading about "the amo".

Climate Science is not an exact science like medicine. You can't compare the two..

[valkhorn]

So little of this has to do with the weather. I do not wish to debate politics with you, as by the looks of it, you may not know much about it in the first place.

My point of view? I will believe in Dangerous AGW only if a dramatic increase in Earth's temperature continues unabated starting now, as it seems we continue to release more CO2 without an Exponential increase in temps over the past decade. If however, we find out that there is an AGW affect, but that it is mostly helpful to our survival, I will say nothing needs to be done.

Otherwise, let's ask the same of you. What will convince you that man is not the cause for most of the global temperature increase over the past century? If you have no answer, that says something.

I didn't ask about 'dangerous' AGW. I asked about AGW in general.

As for me, I already answered it early in this thread. My answer is that if you can find some other source of the recent warming besides man then it would only say that something else IN ADDITION to CO2 is causing warming. For me to say that CO2 can't cause warming, you're going to have to show how it can exist but not be a greenhouse gas.

[Sunny and Warm]

Why don't we debate reality. Since your buddy Warm and Sunny won't answer.

Tell me how the AMO effects Arctic Basin Ocean Temperatures at the surface and below.

Some of us have jobs that require air travel. Got home at midnight. Sometimes people don't answer for simple reasons. If I can get to it later, I'll answer.

[Sunny and Warm]

Why do you keep avoiding this statement:

"I'm still waiting on Strongbad, Gracetoyou, and Sunny and Warm to show what evidence they would consider and how their views might be wrong."

So, what evidence would you listen to? How are you falsifiable? How might your position be wrong?

Can you answer those questions Valkhorn from your POV?? As I see it, the theory is yours, not ours.

[Sunny and Warm]

What you must understand is that this sounds loony to anyone not on the Left. This was a political point and is also one that is very condescending towards people. If you really think they can't make up their own minds and only follow party leaders, just remember that they think the same of you.

As for making a convincing argument, I disagree. If AGW were a Real threat to the status quo, people would react. Doomsday predictions come and go.

well said. The AGW crowd made this political when they allowed Al Gore to become the face of their cause. The AGW crowd made this political when they refused to condemn James Hansen's calls for civil disobedience and destruction of property. Where were you Rusty and Skier and Friv when your voices should have been heard?? You failed to prevent the demonization of AGW by some of your own supporters and now cry about the low public poll numbers. Only you can manage your own perception, and frankly as many have said, your arrogance and absolute-ism is stunning at times.