A long series on climate change

[Cullion]

We did the climate refugee claim early in the thread Johnny.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...237832478.html

You should also do some basic fact checking about Lohachra island
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lohachara_Island

http://articles.timesofindia.indiati...d-haldia-docks


That was poor journalism you're citing I'm afraid.

And I also pointed out that ice breaking up itself isn't evidence of global warming.
Global warming is evidence of global warming. You know, temperature.

[Cullion]

You keep saying you don't dispute this and or that - only the magnitude of response.

what's that saying, "the facts of your vocation are in evidence, ma'am, and now we are merely negotiating on price?"

The magnitude of the response to CO2 could be completely hidden by solar or other forcings and negative feedback mechanisms, which would make the kind of burdens discussed a pointless imposition on the majority of people, to make a few people richer.

[JohnnyCache]

I don't actually contend it's "global warming" in the first place. It's a destabilized environment I worry about, period.

I don't know that anyone in this thread is discussing burdens but you

So to re-cover some ground: You agree co2 is a greenhouse gas, you agree we're pumping out co2, and you agree that the effects of greenhouse gas on the weather system are worthy of study?

[JohnnyCache]

"I won't agree there's climate change until something floods"

Flooded island

"that flooded because of some other scottsman"

[Cullion]

You agree co2 is a greenhouse gas

Yes. Many times since the start of the thread.

you agree we're pumping out co2

Yes, but I don't agree that the amount emitted is demonstrably dangerous.

and you agree that the effects of greenhouse gas on the weather system are worthy of study?

Sure. Worth millions a year in research budgets.

[Cullion]

"I won't agree there's climate change until something floods"

Flooded island

"that flooded because of some other scottsman"

Everybody who actually clicks on my links will see that your original cite was simply bad journalism that did nothing to support the AGW case. As did you.

Come on Johnny, stop tilting at windmills.

[Cullion]

I don't actually contend it's "global warming" in the first place. It's a destabilized environment I worry about, period.

What do you mean by 'destabilised' ? It's never been stable. It's always in flux. What models are you referring to and what do they predict for the future?

You see, this sounds suspiciously like culturally-driven vague anxiety, not science.

[JohnnyCache]

The Berkeley temperature project has been set up by the physicist Richard Muller to reinvestigate the temperature record in light of the problems found with the CRU's, and others' work



.
I don't have to speculate or suggest, there's clear evidence. Read the e-mails. When you're told 'the emails don't really say X', and they clearly do say X, that should be sufficient for you to see what's going on.

Watch the video. How much do you trust the IPCC's reports now?

You did this earlier in the thread, this video in context says the opposite of what you imply it does

[JohnnyCache]

Yes. Many times since the start of the thread.



Yes, but I don't agree that the amount emitted is demonstrably dangerous.



Sure. Worth millions a year in research budgets.

OK

so you agree with the need to study the situation.

What do you think of mueller's full, revised work now that he's oppenly supporting AGW

[Cullion]

You did this earlier in the thread, this video in context says the opposite of what you imply it does

No it does not.