[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by dcb

"While the IMP can contribute significantly to trends for periods of 30 years or less, it cannot account for the 0.8°C warming trend that has been observed in the twentieth century spatially averaged SST."

I'm not sure your conclusion was peer reviewed A

I have no peers

Originally Posted by dcb

The average temperature is still apparently going up these days. The sea level is also still going up. climate change IS happening regardless if it is partly man made or not. Do we agree on at least this much? IS there anything we can agree on if not?

Temps are going up, we can agree on that. The reasons for it are many and varied :

- Natural variation
- The Sun
- Weather
- Adjustments to the record ?

Originally Posted by dcb

regarding "man's" contributions.
But how do you completely write off CO2 contributions? There is ~35% more co2 int the atmosphere than at the start of the industrial age, no? currently co2 is listed as composing 9 – 26 % of the greenhouse effect. whereas before it would have been maybe 6.6-19%. I mean I don't hear any "unbiased" discussion trying to quantify the effects, just folks talking past each other and throwing derisive hail mary's. And unfortunately there are plenty of other good reasons not to be wasteful without AWG, but I think that point gets missed by a large percentage.

Firstly we can't prove that the 35% is solely down to us.

Secondly even if 100% of it is down to us, there is no evidence in the reliable reconstructions of CO2 vs temperature that CO2 at these low levels has actually been a driver of temp. In fact the evidence points to the relationship being the opposite, CO2 actually grows and declines after temperature changes.

Originally Posted by dcb

I personally do not know, it likely in part us coming out of "the little ice age", but we have "some" data to work with. But thermo/bio/fluid dynamics is never an all or nothing proposition, so why all the extreme positions?

I'm not trying to have an extreme position but I'm trying to point out the doubts and uncertainties that exist and that the science is far from conclusive. We could commit ourselves to spending trillions of pounds / euro / dollars on this over the next 50 years - the UN and the IPCC wants us to. That money could be used to fight real problems we have now, including conservation of natural habitats, more effective management of resources and decent healthcare for the third world.

Let me put it this way, if WWF were still campaigning for the protection of the natural environment and wildlife they would still be getting my monthly contribution they used to. As they don't do this, I no longer pay them. Instead local homeless charities get the dosh.