[quote]Climate is complex and dynamic and we do not know all the things that go into it and the way they all interact. The only thing you can say about computers is that they are complex. But we know all their elements, what part each plays and how they interact.
/quote]

As each subsequent argument of denialists, is patiently, and comprehensively, deconstructed, and proved false, by the scientific community, we see the introduction of new, irrefutable arguments from these intransigent deniers.

This particular one which soren is now running up the flag pole can be simplified to it's basic meaning, which amounts to something like;
"there are mysterious unknown forces at work, which we choose to neither identify, or describe, that are causing the problems, therefore you cannot possibly contradict their validity, because you do not know what they are."
This also could be put another way;
"anything that is not understood perfectly, in every possible way, from every possible point of view, cannot be understood at all, and to try to do so is a waste of time"
which is why they equate 99.9% certainty, as being equivalent to zero understanding.
No wonder they have trouble with the math, lol.
So, this new culprit which the denialists are championing as their 'raison d'etre' is the "unknown".

It makes perfect sense when you see their responses to what is "KNOWN", that this group should take their final solace in the great unknown.

Yes, you are absolutely right muso but my concern is where do these campaigns emanate from?
Can we look forward to some future "mea culpas" from repentant PR gurus, of the kind we saw from the tobacco lobby lackeys?

The way we have seen denialism lurch from one argument to the next, without a backward glance of responsibility, really gives it the smack of an organised campaign from very professional people, rather than an organic movement grown up from a groundswell of real doubt amongst the population.
The targeting of the usual suspects, to be the cheerleaders for the cause is as predictable as ever, so I really hope that someone conducts a thorough and searching investigation into the denial campaign and pinpoints the global vandals who are driving it.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 21^st, 2009 at 2:02pm:


It's always the same questions, Muso, there is no lurching.

There is no greenhouse 'signature' up in the atmosphere. If the earth was warming, that's where you'd find proof. It's not there
In the data of the past few thousand years, CO2 changes occur after warming.
If CO2 was the cause of warming, there woul b a causal, demonstrable correlation between CO2 lvels and temperatures. There isn't.
Increasing CO2 does not correspondingly increase th greenhpuse effect. radiativ orcing s not enough.



Is there climate change? Yes. Is it caused by man made CO2? No.

Soren wrote on Nov 21^st, 2009 at 2:30pm:


It may be a tiny part of the atmosphere, but the degree to which it absorbs infrared radiation is the kingpin. Gases absorb infrared radiation to different degrees. Let's just say that the gas produced by anthropogenic activities was sulphur hexafluoride, not CO2, and it's concentration was not 0.0387 percent, but 0.00000387 percent instead.

Would you make the argument that it was only 0.00000387 percent of the atmosphere - an insignificant fraction of the atmosphere?

If you did, then you'd be making a grave mistake. The greenhouse gas potential of SF6 is 16300. That concentration is equivalent to 1.5 times the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in terms of global warming potential.  

Quote:


Read through my past posts - I have already answered these questions.  The exact same causes are operating now, and at this point in time, the changes that would have occurred from those causes would have been negligible. There was a peak from increased Solar irradiance in the first half of the 20th Century. In the second half of the 20th century there was another peak, but far from an increase in solar irradiance, there was a decrease.

Orbital changes (Milankovic cycles) are even slower still, and occur over approximately 100,000 year cycles.  

Quote:


Tell you what, the next time you have a toothache, we'll put it to a democratic vote as to how it should be treated. Do you think that's appropriate?

After all, that would be just democratic dentistry. Maybe we should have a vote on the Laws of Thermodynamics and get them passed by Parliament. Do you agree?

We've already had some ridiculous laws as a result of misinterpretation of science in one particular state (I'm ashamed to say which one), with lawmakers deciding on a hot water temperature for the workpace double that of the ambient temperature. The problem is that absolute zero is -273 degrees C. A "doubling of temperature" would have produced extremely dangerous high temperature steam. That's what happens when you have democratic science.

Maybe you would prefer it we could all take a vote on how the CO2 molecules should absorb infrared radiation, get a law passed, then complain like hell to your local member if the CO2 molecules refuse to obey the law.  

Quote:


It's not a hypothesis. It's solid theory, as solid as Electronic theory that is written in textbooks and was used to make your computer.

You understand logarithmic reasonably well, and it's a good job that it is logarithmic, otherwise we would have no hope of fixing this problem.

All the increase in atmospheric CO2 is manmade, especially if you include natural processes that have resulted in release of CO2 as a result of the activities of man.  

The measurements of past atmospheric CO2 concentrations are a testimony to that fact.

mozzaok wrote on Nov 21^st, 2009 at 3:44pm:


It is not the vibe. There is an increasing number of scientists expressing scepticism about AGW. I am simply not dismissing them as you seem to expect. I am satisfied that honest, independent, qualified scientists can and do express scepticism about AGW. They are very much worth hearing. I am alo aware that their number is not going backwards.

Any dissenting voice is treated by warmerists as a deliberate, sinister plot. This gives me the sh!ts and I could not, in good conscience, side with such hysterical fools.  Every intemperate tantrum by the Rudds, Mannes, Monbiots and the rest the opinionators is, to me, proof positive that they MUST be wrong.

They are political voices and they are shrill, dictatorial pricks. I do welcome sceptical opposition to them.



Muso,
I did say that science is NOT democratic. And your reposte? You challenge me to put my toothache to a democratic vote. Huh? I am the one asking for evidence, not the poll numbers.i

What's with the parochial fixation on Plimer?

From the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=d6d95751-802a-23ad-4496-7ec7e1641f2f

Plimer is not mentioned.

muso wrote on Nov 21^st, 2009 at 10:49pm:



Calling 31 thousand scientists (and that's jut in the US) sinister liars is laughable, Muso.


You have drunk far too much Al Gore Kool Aid, as they say.

http://www.petitionproject.org/

Soren wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 9:34am:


Scientists schmientists.

You're not dragging that one up again are you? You have a very short memory.

This time, please watch the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5P8mlF8KT6I