antarctic ice shelf in peril as bridge snaps, page-97

Butcherboy - getting a bit late, and I don't want to pretend I have any authority in relation to the subject matter, or to have an endless discussion about it, as you say people have their opinions - I have heaps of them and change them all the time. But I want to comment on your remarks because it's approach mirrors the tone of much of the discussion about climate change.

"Everyone has an opinion, but time for disbelief is over MisterS..."
If it was proven, there would be no need for belief or disbelief, it would be a fact, which you might choose to ignore, but not earnestly disbelieve. You say my time for disbelief is over - that is rather unsporting and incorrect.

"You think maybe the emissions trading schemes are a waste of time or perhaps some sort of Al Gore inspired conspiracy to somehow tax businesses higher than they are now? Why would any government or institution even contemplate such a thing if there were any debate left to be had?"

That is called setting up a straw man for you to knock down. I don't think any such thing. You may have noticed by the way, that governments tax quite effectively without having to resort to global trickery and with all due respect, Governments are forever doing stupid things.

"The greenhouse thing is there to try and point out to people that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas and if you increase the concenbtration by 50% in the atmosphere then, all else being equal, it is going to have an effect. Yes, the concentrations are very small and yes the temperature increase is only very small (a 2 degree rise is only 0.7% when measured in degrees Kelvin!) but the impact is very high."

Well, it is the "all else being equal" which hides the core of the modelling problem and why I object to having my time for disbelief arbitrarily cut short.

"Let me turn it around. Are you saying an increase of 50% in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will have no discernible effect on the temperature of the atmosphere? Yes I know there is a multitude of variables that affect the temperature, but forget about them, I think we should stick to CO2 because that is what we are discussing here. You seem like an intelligent person. I am asking you about a 50% increase in CO2. Please tell me if you think it will affect the temperature, given that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas? No denigration, no abuse from me, please just answer the question. A simple yes or no would be great. Thanks."

I tend to shy away from your demand for a single word answer to lengthy assertions when my opinion is actually excluded by your proposition in the first place, in that I should a) forget about the variables, and b) that all we are discussing here is c02. That is all you want to discuss based on the faulty premise that everything, including the earth's climate history, unless selectively edited, is about c02. You can see what I am saying in my posts, you don't have to postulate that I am saying something different.

I specifically don't want to have to leave the incredible range of poorly understood variables to one side. It is precisely this fact which makes weather so difficult to accurately model and forms the basis for my objection. Even the seven day forecast has to be updated every day.

And yet you go on to say that:
"Your link points out the inherent variability of climate modelling. I doubt anyone is going to disagree with that."

So, you wish to deny me any reference to it in the "one word" I am granted in reply, while you attempt to disarm the argument by saying no one disagrees with it, but everyone is invited by inference to completely discount it?

"Oh, and this is not meant to be derogatory, but all theories are open to question. There is still a flat earth society."

Well the derogatory remarks reference was merely referring to the assertion that the counter-argument generally, is only supported by "dodgy internet sources".

The link provided was to the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, which is one that does not fit that description.

I just chanced on the article quoted, and I wouldn't be surprised if there is information on that site which may support your own view, but you will get a sense of these variables you so conveniently wish to put aside for the sake of propogating your own opinion.