Politics And AGW/GW

[Thundery wintry showers]

Have a closer look at what I said:

This sort of confirmation bias is a common trait on both sides of this, and many other debates- but because many people do it, it doesn't make it right, nor does it make it unacceptable for me to point it out.

Note "on both sides". Some rampant AGWists do it, it does not mean that anyone whose standpoint deviates from "AGW is a myth" should be lumped together with them- or that it is acceptable for anti-AGWists to do it (the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right" applies here).

[Solar Cycles]

But TWS, there are many rampant AGWists on here who froth at the mouth when it is 'attacked' - by any means. You know who they are! Similarly,Ossie is very quick to point out the spelling mistakes and grammatical errors of the deniers,presumably to demonstrate that their mental faculties are lacking and have no right or ability to form any conclusions about anything,let alone the snake pit of climate change. I've yet to hear him expose/highlight the shortcomings of anyone from the warmer's side of the fence - and I can think of many off the top of my head! Now,why would that be? Oh,going to get messy again I fear... I'm off! PS...can you point to something/anything that supports AGW regardless of my,or anyone else's 'standpoint'?

I'll answer that last question LG if you don't mind. NO!!! What they can show you is fudged data, and IPCC projections, which are as mythical as a unicorn! Real life evidence is what will convince me, not some flawed computer model, illustrating some event way into the future. Let's face it warmist, your models are way off base now. Wonder why that is!!!!

[VillagePlank]

I'll answer that last question LG if you don't mind. NO!!! What they can show you is fudged data, and IPCC projections, which are as mythical as a unicorn! Real life evidence is what will convince me, not some flawed computer model, illustrating some event way into the future. Let's face it warmist, your models are way off base now. Wonder why that is!!!!

I wonder why that is, too.

I suspect it's for a rather unremarkable reason, and to do with an underlying computing philosophy rather than specific judgements about what does and does not constitute a reason for modern warming. I would hazard a guess that because we have ever increasing accuracy from computer models that predict the weather by using a smaller grid size and integrating more and more known physical laws, that that philosophy is translated into modelling climate- and that hasn't been half as successful as modelling the weather.

You have to give people the benefit of the doubt; that is, the scientists behind the models have used known physical laws, integrated them, and have drawn conclusions from the results. Why shouldn't they do that? The concerns you should have is for the political judgements - those judgements that are a step away from the core source, and after all, that is what this thread is about.

It is fine for me - an amateur - to play with novel ideas of integrating different source data, and, for sure, it is now more than just a curiosity. if you like, the search is on for the physical analogue of the leaky integrator (the ocean acts rather like a capacitor and low pass filter is my best guess, so far) but it is a much more different ball game to construct a self consistent theory based on the LI hypothesis.

That's my t'ppence worth.

Edited April 28, 2009 by VillagePlank

[Thundery wintry showers]

The truth is that we don't know how far off base the models are at predicting the future because the future hasn't happened yet. What we do know is that they're getting increasingly good at simulating the past. Whether that means they'll be good at predicting the future is open to debate, but it certainly doesn't mean that they're bad at predicting the future. Insisting that is no better than insisting that they're foolproof at predicting the future.

Re. Solar Cycles, "fudged data and mythical IPCC projections"- even if that was all the evidence we had- would be evidence that supported AGW. If those accusations were correct, it would be heavily flawed evidence, but it would be supportive evidence. Or at least, no less so than the "evidence" against AGW that gets posted by some quarters, like:

A. AGW is a myth because it is a threat to unrestrained free-market capitalism, which is the solution to everything,

B. AGW is a myth because some of its proponents are extremist, therefore anyone who doesn't dismiss it is extremist, therefore AGW is based on extremism,

C. AGW is a myth because X says so, and X is right, because AGW is a myth,

D. AGW is a myth because humans like to think they're more powerful than they really are, and therefore they must have invented AGW. Which we know to be true, because AGW is a myth.

And I think you'll find that the anti-AGW data is no less prone to fudging than pro-AGW data- if anything it seems to be fudged more- and I would like to see a basis for the IPCC's projections being "mythical". Their accuracy is certainly open to question- but "mythical" is a bit strong!

(Note: this is in response to Solar Cycles, not VP)

Edited April 28, 2009 by Thundery wintry showers

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

I don't think that the IPCC projections are 'mythical'.

AGW does 'exist' IMO, just not nearly as much as most of its propenents think, and insists that everyone else should think too. The aspect I most strongly disagree with is the respective feedback weightings and the assessments given to human override of natural factors.

Much as referenced in the post I gave on the general thread yesterday, which appears to have been ignored, but gives an opinion regarding the approach of AGW'ism and the IPCC in general (ignoring the lunatic fringes).

[osmposm]

.....Similarly,Ossie is very quick to point out the spelling mistakes and grammatical errors of the deniers,presumably to demonstrate that their mental faculties are lacking and have no right or ability to form any conclusions about anything.....

Now that, Barrie - in all honesty - absolutely floors me with surprise. I writhe with discomfort at the spelling and grammar on here sometimes, but (as I see it) almost never say a word. Just occasionally I mention something when it is exceptionally difficult or impossible to understand, but I amazed that you think I do it in a partisan way....in fact I strenuously avoid doing it in the climate change discussions altogether (I thought). I won't say any more for now, but I will trawl back through my posts of the last six months, say, and see what I find. And if I find that I do then I am very sorry.

Certainly I often try and point out flaws in the logic of people's arguments, and - most frequently - complain about the unreasonable, and sometimes insulting blanket dismissals of entire sections of thoughtful scientific opinion. But that's rather different.

I will report back

Ossie

[Solar Cycles]

I don't think that the IPCC projections are 'mythical'.

AGW does 'exist' IMO, just not nearly as much as most of its propenents think, and insists that everyone else should think too. The aspect I most strongly disagree with is the respective feedback weightings and the assessments given to human override of natural factors.

Much as referenced in the post I gave on the general thread yesterday, which appears to have been ignored, but gives an opinion regarding the approach of AGW'ism and the IPCC in general (ignoring the lunatic fringes).

Yes it does exist, but it's effects are way over estimated, and that's what makes my blood boil. VP I follow your LI with great interest, I hope to contribute towards it at some point. TWS I have never stated that AGW is a myth, just what I have posted above. It's the fudging of data which is rife in climate science, that needs to be addressed. I don't hold out much hope though, to many with far to much to lose!!

[Thundery wintry showers]

Herein lies the problem. Those who take up a comparitively pro-AGW stance (myself included) are continually slated for saying "the science is settled" and "the effects of AGW are NOT being overestimated", pointing out (quite reasonably) that there is more uncertainty involved than that.

Yet the same people insist, "AGW is being overestimated", as if there is no uncertainty at all over that statement.

What part of "double standards" does this not come under?

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

Yes it does exist, but it's effects are way over estimated, and that's what makes my blood boil. VP I follow your LI with great interest, I hope to contribute towards it at some point. TWS I have never stated that AGW is a myth, just what I have posted above. It's the fudging of data which is rife in climate science, that needs to be addressed. I don't hold out much hope though, to many with far to much to lose!!

Agree entirely. I think it would be a good idea if AGW proponents started more accurately portraying what most sceptics believe. There are some who completely dismiss AGW as a zero influence, which should also be equally respected, but I think the majority are of the opinion that natural factors simply override it. That is where the apparent 'myth' belief of AGW may lie and as such is in direct contrast to mainstream AGW hypothesis.

Therefore I understand your use of the term 'mythical' in terms of the IPCC - and sense the frustration in your use of the word

[Thundery wintry showers]

But there are some "sceptics" who do insist that AGW is fiction as opposed to being overestimated, and some who alternate between the two positions (posting "it's overestimated" one moment and "the whole AGW train is to be derailed as the fiction gets shown up and all climate scientists pick up their P45s" the next.)

The insistence "AGW is being overestimated" is better than saying "AGW is a myth", but is no better than saying "AGW isn't being overestimated and the science is settled". It's hypocritical to point out that "the science is settled" fails to take various sources of uncertainty into account, only to then talk as if it's certain that AGW is being overestimated.

I would also like to mention that Tamara's point works both ways. Way too many sceptics categorise all those who think there's even the slightest possibility of AGW being a serious issue as thinking "the science is settled, AGW is serious"- or even "CO2 is 100% responsible for the warming since the 1960s" which is pure straw. I do, as it happens, have a gripe with the consensus view that politicians need to preach to the public that the science is settled in order to "simplify things and avoid generating doubt", but that's politicians, it's not the people on these threads.

Edited April 28, 2009 by Thundery wintry showers

[weather eater]

Yes it does exist, but it's effects are way over estimated, and that's what makes my blood boil. VP I follow your LI with great interest, I hope to contribute towards it at some point. TWS I have never stated that AGW is a myth, just what I have posted above. It's the fudging of data which is rife in climate science, that needs to be addressed. I don't hold out much hope though, to many with far to much to lose!!

Herein lays the problem, you say the fudging of data is rife in climate science but climate science is more than just about AGW, climate science is about climate past present and future, I take it that you don’t think the data on past climate is fudged or data that supports natural cycles being the prime driver of climate or data that may prove AGW is a myth is fudged, only the data that supports AGW is fudged. I also presume that you think the reason for this is because any climate scientist that supports AGW theory is in the pay of money grabbing governments and business men and any that don’t are fair honest and would never take money to tell untruths.

I have no doubt that we have much to learn and that work is needed to improve climate modelling but to suggest that any scientist who doesn’t share your point of view as some kind money raking fraud is just stupid and does nothing for debate and the search for the truth. As an idea it might be wise for the mods to remove any posts that use the terms deniers, warmists and any other emotive terms plus any other posts that demean members intellects just because they see things differently.

[Admiral_Bobski]

Herein lays the problem, you say the fudging of data is rife in climate science but climate science is more than just about AGW, climate science is about climate past present and future, I take it that you don’t think the data on past climate is fudged or data that supports natural cycles being the prime driver of climate or data that may prove AGW is a myth is fudged, only the data that supports AGW is fudged. I also presume that you think the reason for this is because any climate scientist that supports AGW theory is in the pay of money grabbing governments and business men and any that don’t are fair honest and would never take money to tell untruths.

I have no doubt that we have much to learn and that work is needed to improve climate modelling but to suggest that any scientist who doesn’t share your point of view as some kind money raking fraud is just stupid and does nothing for debate and the search for the truth. As an idea it might be wise for the mods to remove any posts that use the terms deniers, warmists and any other emotive terms plus any other posts that demean members intellects just because they see things differently.

Hi weather eater

I agree with your sentiment, but I would point out that there are those who support the AGW hypothesis that accuse skeptical scientists of being in the pay of oil companies, pro-capitalism organisations and the like. The big problem is that so many of these points have equal and opposite counterpoints.

I would love to see discussions on this forum (or, indeed, any forum) which stuck to facts and science and didn't descend into name-calling, grudges and huffs. The problem is that AGW is such an emotive subject that people become excessively polarised - even scientists are not immune from resorting to extremism: take Dr James Hanson, who is quoted as having said (and I am paraphrasing) that it's okay to exaggerate and distort the science to prove a point. (I'm sure people could point out a bunch of skeptical scientists and level the same accusation against them, but Dr Hanson springs immediately to my mind - I am not by any means suggesting that skeptical scientists are blameless in this regard.)

I am also concerned that removal of mildy antagonistic posts might be inappropriate in terms of freedom of speech Obviously there is a certain degree of decorum that should be maintained, and wildly abusive posts should be removed, but that decorum is the responsibility of the poster. A temporary ban for serious (abusive) offenders should suffice, with a permanent ban being an option for repeat offenders. Deleting any post which uses a term which might offend some others seems a little, shall we say, stifling. Especially since the level of offence is largely subjective - I tend to ignore sticks'n'stones comments these days.

Ah well...

CB

PS - Time for a quick Shameless Plug - visit the Leaky Integrator thread...come along and join in!

[Guest North Sea Snow Convection]

But there are some "sceptics" who do insist that AGW is fiction as opposed to being overestimated, and some who alternate between the two positions (posting "it's overestimated" one moment and "the whole AGW train is to be derailed as the fiction gets shown up and all climate scientists pick up their P45s" the next.)

The insistence "AGW is being overestimated" is better than saying "AGW is a myth", but is no better than saying "AGW isn't being overestimated and the science is settled". It's hypocritical to point out that "the science is settled" fails to take various sources of uncertainty into account, only to then talk as if it's certain that AGW is being overestimated.

I would also like to mention that Tamara's point works both ways. Way too many sceptics categorise all those who think there's even the slightest possibility of AGW being a serious issue as thinking "the science is settled, AGW is serious"- or even "CO2 is 100% responsible for the warming since the 1960s" which is pure straw. I do, as it happens, have a gripe with the consensus view that politicians need to preach to the public that the science is settled in order to "simplify things and avoid generating doubt", but that's politicians, it's not the people on these threads.

Why is suggesting that AGW is overestimated also the same as saying the science is settled? There are so many varying degrees of weightings in terms of feedbacks that even with a statement suggesting 'overestimation' there is no certainty involved - ie nothing is 'settled'.

The subtle but crucial difference is that many mainstream sceptics will seek to widen the boundaries of possibilities by suggesting a wider remit of reasons for climate variation beyond just the relatively lower number of human forcings that exist when compared to natural/cyclical one's - hence 'overestimation' of one narrow sector of human forcing measures is a suitable term to broaden such a range of solutions. But that is certainly not saying that any 'science is settled'. It is just widening the scientific research base beyond AGW. In that way the truth is much more likely to be found for climate variation. AGW does the reverse and puts probabilities within a very narrow field of research, based on selective small parts of (relatively) recent climate history and tries to build evidence around it's hypothesis.

Putting eggs in one basket and putting variation down to a single forcing (anthropromorphic) that has been in existence a much shorter time than long term cyclical and natural forcings (eg the sun) is skewing the science into a very narrow microscope. Suggesting that human forcings override natural forcings is a much more precise declaration than vice versa. A wider range of natural causations are available - but more importantly, their impacts are proven over thousands of years unlike AGW forcings which remain a moment in time climate history hypothesis.

Sceptics do not suggest 'science is settled' at any time - but rather would implore that in studying a subject within its remit (ie climate change in the given instance) its learnings have to be built upon its evolution and history (ie climate history) rather than taking off on a quantum modern day hypothesis and declaring it as fact and absolute based on selective modern day climate history on the justification that it is thought to be understood more.

An admission such as saying that more is known about modern day climate trends is really just a way of justifying taking a selected chunk of climate history to regress data on and which in turn to build the very pre-supposition of AGW hypothesis because it covers a period of time whereby active research has been/is being taken to underpin such modern day confidence - and thereby somehow justify the hypothesis as fact. It remains a hypothesis though, because the confidence expressed in its research is front loaded and the historical part (beyond, say, the last 100 to 150 yrs) becomes immaterial and a basis to dismiss the natural cycles on, which climate variation has always been based. On the basis that the research is selective of a 'deemed' more understood portion of climate history, it is as such an incomplete study, and therofore remains a hypothesis that cannot merit/deserve/justify being presented with the assumed confidence that the likes of the IPCC would wish to attach to it.

In truth the last 100 to 150 yrs climate variation, even, is not understood as much as AGW proponents would insist. REAL understanding of the 'recent past' and 'present' will only come with better understanding of the much larger past. But that will be difficult to achieve without sacrificing the hypothesis of total AGW and coming clean that modern day climate history is not understood nearly as much as it is thought to be. That declaration of assumed understanding is just the excuse used to give the hypothesis a (pre-supposed) mandate to be presented as a fact.

A revision in terms of assumed control of human induced factors would be a welcome start.

Edited April 28, 2009 by North Sea Snow Convection

[Thundery wintry showers]

Why is suggesting that AGW is overestimated also the same as saying the science is settled? There are so many varying degrees of weightings in terms of feedbacks that even with a statement suggesting 'overestimation' there is no certainty involved - ie nothing is 'settled'.

I note you left out the most important bit of my argument and, having left it out, attacked the much weaker argument that remained. My original post said that saying "AGW is overestimated" is as bad as saying "AGW isn't being overestimated and the science is settled". Leave the bit in italics in, and the comparison makes a lot more sense.

"AGW is being overestimated" implies, put simply, "the anthropogenic influence on climate change is being overestimated". I don't see how this is any more of a given than the idea that it isn't being overestimated? Uncertainty applies both ways and makes both of those scenarios possible.

I'm afraid most of Tamara's post is pure straw, the gist of it being, "many sceptics are open-minded and want to explore a wider range of possibilities, whereas AGW proponents are fixed on the idea that the scientific consensus is a given". Or along those lines, at any rate. It could just as easily be turned on its head, with someone arguing "many AGW proponents are open to the wide uncertainties surrounding natural influences on climate, whereas sceptics are fixed on the idea that AGW is a myth". With regards, for example, the assertion "sceptics do not suggest 'science is settled' ". How about the various 'sceptics' on these threads and in the various links to internet sites who have confidently stated that it is settled that AGW is a myth? The reality is that you get good and bad on both sides.

Another example of not comparing like with like- Tamara insists that uncertainty is greater than the scientific consensus says. Again- uncertainty works both ways. It does not just imply that AGW might be being overestimated, it also opens up the possibility that it might be being underestimated as well. Who knows, maybe natural cycles might have actually been masking global warming? At the moment the available evidence supports the notion that the natural cycles have contributed to the warming- but might we find out something that overturns this? Thus the conclusion "AGW is being overestimated" simply does not follow.

[Methuselah]

The subtle but crucial difference is that many mainstream sceptics will seek to widen the boundaries of possibilitiesPutting eggs in one basket and putting variation down to a single forcing (anthropromorphic) that has been in existence a much shorter time than long term cyclical and natural forcings (eg the sun) is skewing the science into a very narrow microscope. Suggesting that human forcings override natural forcings is a much more precise declaration than vice versa. A wider range of natural causations are available - but more importantly, their impacts are proven over thousands of years unlike AGW forcings which remain a moment in time climate history hypothesis.

In truth the last 100 to 150 yrs climate variation, even, is not understood as much as AGW proponents would insist. REAL understanding of the 'recent past' and 'present' will only come with better understanding of the much larger past.

A revision in terms of assumed control of human induced factors would be a welcome start.

This is just the same sort of thing - claims to be more open-minded than the rest - that allows all sorts of charlatanry to be accepted?

[jethro]

I'm sure this thread was set up to discuss the political implications of AGW, how the theory is used, abused and mis-represented by politicians and media hacks to further their own agendas.

It wasn't set up to endlessly have a go at each other.

How about getting back to the original idea of this thread, eh? A bit of tolerance for each others foibles wouldn't go amiss either; we're none of us Angels, none of us are absolutely right or absolutely wrong.

Bored rigid with reading how some folks are justified in their criticism and arguments, whilst others aren't. Says who?

Rant over.....

[noggin]

but you do seem to latch onto anything that supports your view, state everything that fits it as fact ("it's the sun, I tell you") and dismiss anything that doesn't, and then if your view is challenged, use the "everyone's entitled to their opinions" as a get-out clause. All of this is symptomatic of taking one side of the issue and working backwards from that premise, rather than looking at it objectively.

......."everyone's entitled to their opinion" is NOT a get-out clause, TWS, it is a tolerance. Everyone is entitled to draw whatever conclusion they may, from whatever evidence they choose. Not just scientific evidence either, they can also use additional methods (historical evidence, observations, common sense, an acceptance that there is probably more to anything than meets the eye)) to enable them to reach a conclusion.

Thankfully, the "thought police" are not yet with us.

[Thundery wintry showers]

It IS a get-out clause. If we have a debate, and you make a point, and someone else provides a rebuttal that you have no answer to, instead of acknolwedging that you have no rebuttal you can avoid that issue by saying "it's my opinion, and everyone's entitled to their opinions, so therefore my point is no less valid than yours".

There is also a difference between the right to merely have an opinion, and the right to express it in a way that is detrimental to everyone else, e.g. by stifiling a discussion by holding a narrow-minded position on something and refusing to take on board any evidence or views that might challenge that position. If certain people are of the opinion "AGW is a myth" or "AGW is being overestimated" then there's no harm in them merely having that opinion, but there is plenty of harm in them using it to ruin discussions on the subject.

In addition it is not the case that all opinions are equally valid. In many subject areas, especially uncertain ones like climate change, there is often ample scope for a range of possible "right" answers. But there is nearly always a range of possible "wrong" answers as well, and if someone believes in a wrong answer, the fact that it's his/her opinion doesn't make it any less wrong. For starters, one can even say, "My opinion is that I am right and everyone else is wrong, and that I am thus entitled to be extremely narrow-minded and intolerant of any views other than my own, and you've got to let me do that because everyone are entitled to their opinions" - which brings up the self-limiting "how far do you tolerate the intolerant" paradox.

[Methuselah]

[quote name='noggin' date='29 Apr 2009, 09:37 AM' post='1521230']

......."everyone's entitled to their opinion" is NOT a get-out clause, TWS, it is a tolerance. Everyone is entitled to draw whatever conclusion they may, from whatever evidence they choose. Not just scientific evidence either, they can also use additional methods (historical evidence, observations, common sense, an acceptance that there is probably more to anything than meets the eye)) to enable them to reach a conclusion.

Thankfully, the "thought police" are not yet with us.

[weather eater]

......."everyone's entitled to their opinion" is NOT a get-out clause, TWS, it is a tolerance. Everyone is entitled to draw whatever conclusion they may, from whatever evidence they choose. Not just scientific evidence either, they can also use additional methods (historical evidence, observations, common sense, an acceptance that there is probably more to anything than meets the eye)) to enable them to reach a conclusion.

Thankfully, the "thought police" are not yet with us.

They are provided they make it clear that what is being expressed is an opinion and not a fact, to many on both sides of the argument have tried to disguise opinion as fact, the most common statement at this point of time is that AGW is a myth, actually its a theory and thus neither fact nor fiction. The question that governments have to address is what are the consequences of doing nothing if the theory turns out to be true, is it better to act now or wait to see what happens and how serious are things likely to get if we don’t act. Its a bit like the swine flu situation, it might amount to very little the scientific advice is that there is a real danger of a pandemic if that happens and governments have failed to act in advance they will be accuses of ineptitude and failing to heed the warnings of the scientists. Rightly or wrongly the scientific consensus at this point of time is that AGW is not a myth, that may change indeed the questioning of that theory seems to be becoming more rigorous. Its worth saying also despite the often heated exchanges on this site I doubt whether any members would be unhappy if AGW turned out to be a myth, most of us want to see cold winters.

Edited April 29, 2009 by weather eater

[Methuselah]

I doubt whether any members would be unhappy if AGW turned out to be a myth, most of us want to see cold winters.

Entirely agree, WE...It was my love of cold winters that caused me to dismiss the whole idea for so many years; and, that in spite of the fact that I've known since 1973 that CO2 is a greenhouse gas!

[Solar Cycles]

[quote name='noggin' date='29 Apr 2009, 09:37 AM' post='1521230']

......."everyone's entitled to their opinion" is NOT a get-out clause, TWS, it is a tolerance. Everyone is entitled to draw whatever conclusion they may, from whatever evidence they choose. Not just scientific evidence either, they can also use additional methods (historical evidence, observations, common sense, an acceptance that there is probably more to anything than meets the eye)) to enable them to reach a conclusion.

Thankfully, the "thought police" are not yet with us.

I agree with TWS here, noggin...Science shouldn't be about hunches, gut feelings, superstitions and incredulity, IMO what common-sense mostly is... Is the world not quite spheriodal merely because a few believe it to be entirely flat? Is AIDS not entirely a result of HIV just because a few religious loons think otherwise???

To me everyone's entitled to their opinion is a get out clause; it reduces holding a falsity as true to be merely holding an opinion, and thus inalienable...

It's also not about the fudging of data, but hey it happens! Everyone is entitled to an opinion, I think you are wrong and likewise Pete. The science is far from settled on this matter, the IPCC have been caught on the hop, when their projected temp rises which we should have been seeing now, have fallen by the wayside. That's not denial but fact!!!!!!!

[Thundery wintry showers]

The science is far from settled on this matter, the IPCC have been caught on the hop, when their projected temp rises which we should have been seeing now, have fallen by the wayside. That's not denial but fact!!!!!!!

A classic case of "opinion being disguised as fact" as WE put it. We haven't had anywhere near enough of a time span to be able to state with certainty what happens to the IPCC's predictions since most of them refer to the climate in 40 and 90 years' time.

Does your statement re. opinions give me licence to be extremely arrogant, narrow-minded and dismissive of your views, launch personal attacks on you, and say "well my opinion is that it's okay to do that, and everyone's entitled to their opinions" as a get-out clause for said actions? Thought not. Tolerance has limits when it comes to tolerating the intolerant, and tolerating acts that are detrimental to everyone else.

Edit: see here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion

...an opinion is a subjective thing that cannot be proved true or false.

and here for a discussion of what I've been getting at:

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir..._an_opinion.php

Edited April 29, 2009 by Thundery wintry showers

[jethro]

The only things in this debate which are not an opinion, are undisputed facts. Anyone got any of those?

[Solar Cycles]

A classic case of "opinion being disguised as fact" as WE put it. We haven't had anywhere near enough of a time span to be able to state with certainty what happens to the IPCC's predictions since most of them refer to the climate in 40 and 90 years' time.

Does your statement re. opinions give me licence to be extremely arrogant, narrow-minded and dismissive of your views, launch personal attacks on you, and say "well my opinion is that it's okay to do that, and everyone's entitled to their opinions" as a get-out clause for said actions? Thought not. Tolerance has limits when it comes to tolerating the intolerant, and tolerating acts that are detrimental to everyone else.

Can you put your toy's back in your pram please! We are way off the mark now regarding IPCC's temperature rises, how the hell do you expect Jo Public to take their future projections at face value. Also anyone who doesn't agree with your opinion is narrow minded then? Typical dismissive viewpoint of the so called elite Climate Scientist. Thank goodness I'm not part of that club!