On 02/12/2011 17:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

See. Is all deniers versus warmists with you.

No room left for science..at all.

As I said above you have moved the goalposts so far to one side that
anyone who really does have a more balanced viewpoint than yourself is
held up to ridicule for being a warmist.

No, that's your trick.

Now who have I held up to ridicule for being a warmist?

The moment you started on not about the science, but about 'deniers'
'right wing blogs' you betrayed your true colours.

You really are losing touch with reality. The deniers are a force to be
reckoned with because by and large they have no regard for the truth and
facts are there to be manipulated if possible and ignored if they can't.
And I am sure I have never ever used the phrase 'right wing blogs' or
indeed blog.

At which point I assumed I wasn't dealing with a rational human
scientist but an irrational believer..

I trained as an engineer, not a scientist, so I am much more open to
practical propositions than to either abstract theory or belief systems
unconnected with reality.

Whose 'rational' arguments wouldn't cut the mustard

Tis you who is not being rational.

So YOU can answer the question

"What assurances can you give me that the models on which AGW are based
have not omitted something that is as important if not MORE important
than CO2,

Of course there is some degree of uncertainty in what isn't yet known
but scientists have been poring over the question for years so why
hasn't your hypothetical 'more important to climate change than CO2'
process been identified and sorted out long before now. The effect of
CO2 itself is well understood which doesn't leave much room for another
process that does something similar at any strength approaching that of CO2.

and what, if you remove positive feedback for which you have
no proven established mechanism that accounts for it,

As far as I know all the feedback mechanisms are based on sound theory
so you need to spell out which particular mechanisms you find suspect.

is the actual
temperature rise predicted (hint: very un-scary)

Well that is what the deniers say so I wouldn't expect your take to be
any different.

and finally, if this
unwarranted feedback is taken out how do you account

the feedback is only unwarranted in the eyes of a denier.

for the existing
temperature rises (hint: if the lack of warming since 2000 is all la
nina etc, why not all the warming since 1970 el nino and friends etc etc?).

There is no doubt that there has been a slowdown in recent years but the
decade 2001 - 2010 is undoubtedly the warmest decade since records began.

the ENSO is an irregular periodic fluctuation. To even suggest that it
is responsible for a continuing trend suggests desperation on your part.
If you take the temperatures over that decade at face value you actually
do get a slight decline in the second half of the decade compared with
the first but the ENSO was probably responsible for that. If you look at
the number of months when El Nino or La Nina were significant the ratio
for the first half of the decade was 20/2 while for the second half
13/15. ie La Nina went from next to nothing between 2001 and 2005 to
being more dominant from 2006 to 2010.

It is far too early to tell whether this is the top of the curve or just
a minor blip in a relentless rise. The post WW2 drift went on for
several decades before resuming the rise.

--
Roger Chapman