Wow — did you get your position from an AGW blog? Yours is a dreadful misinterpretation of the Cosmic Ray/Solar hypothesis and Dr. Svensmark’s point. Perhaps you should CAREFULLY read Svensmark’s entire reply to the Lockwood and Froelich paper and more on the theory itself. Your inference is backward from both the hypothesis and Svensmark’s point. The hypothesis is cosmic rays flux is inversely related to temps … or more importantly, solar (winds) UP => cosmic rays DOWN => clouds DOWN => temps UP! According to the hypothesis, it is supposed to be a “negative correlation.” You interchanged solar flux with (inversely related) cosmic ray flux to support your own beliefs, not Dr. Svensmark’s.

The “consensus” should welcome ALL debaters/skeptics/deniers and consider the points raised. If for nothing else: to help improve their models and fill their loopholes. If the science was truly settled, then no more models or changes to models would be needed right (it is settled, no more work needed)? However, Hansen’s models were not complete back in the 80′s (there were updates/additions in the late 90′s). I can’t believe that we (mankind) have perfected the climate model, much less the modeling techniques for such highly complex and open systems.

Even if “Scientist” were to remove any doubts I have, that wouldn’t change my stance that I want to drive a Hummer, pour cleaning chemicals down the drain, burn barrels of oil in my backyard for fun, contribute to companies who cut down the rainforest, put down my remote control, eat less meat, etc.

The Earth is quite dangerous,
the Universe too.
For many dangers
there’s nothing to do
(if there’s no God,
we’re simply screwed).

But with CO2,
it’s different indeed;
no burning of carbon
and please do not breathe.

“CO2 rises” should read “temp rises”. He/she/it was most likely confused by the Latin.

Oh well, de gustibus non est disputandum….

the models say the Trop should warm faster than the surface. Both ‘sonde and satellite say the Trop isn’t. The observations are wrong according to Hansen and pals.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So what’s caused the rapid COOLing this past winter then? That arctic ice is back.

“Know any academics? Doesn’t look like it.” Anyone who’s ever even been a university student knows they’ll get better marks when they hand in a paper that agrees with their prof’s stance on anything, and if they disagree they have to be pretty much bullet-proof. That only gets amplified as you rise.

“the climate without man is really, really stable. – no, no-one has claimed the latter.” Mann’s hockey-stick graph.

As for sea-level rise, apparently the Dutch http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=61 aren’t that worried. It also seems to be a case of automatically assuming that any worst-case scenario must be true. I find that a tendency in the alarmist movement all around: that any change and the outcome of all future projects will be uniformly bad.

“There are lots of reasons outside of climate issues to believe that residents of the US will eventually have to live on much less. It may really not be that bad.”
- Those who will lose the most will be the middle-class, causing much greater disparity. It is extremes in disparity – not poverty – that is behind most crime, social and political instability, etc. Democracy, social stability and freedom flourish when there is a large middle class.

“that those opposed to action (based on value decisions) raise scientific uncertainty as a reason for delay or inaction” – I’d say the reverse – that those who argue most for State force in terms of environmental policy who are the ones insisting there is a ‘consensus’ and that the ‘debate is over’ as grounds to push through things as quickly and broadly as possible.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/

“Mark Shafer, director of climate services at the Oklahoma Climatological Survey, reviews The Honest Broker in the May, 2008 Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. It is a positive review. He writes:

Pielke’s discussion of climate change politics is excellent. He seizes on the central issue in climate change politics: that those opposed to action (based on value decisions) raise scientific uncertainty as a reason for delay or inaction. In response, scientists focus on reducing or eliminating uncertainty to undermine grounds for opposition to action rather than focusing on the merits of the argument, which is really a values-based decision irrespectie of the science.”

So the issue of global warming itself, the relative effects, if any, of
CO2 increases, measurement errors, water vapor feedbacks, solar effects,
could in theory be a non political quest for information, but in practice the debate is not grounded in science, but political values- A. McIntire

They are nearly entirely basing what little evidence exists on the logical fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc. And we now know CO2 rises aren’t even historically post hoc, so there goes most of the basis for this movement.

Morally, what these people are proposing, specifically enacting draconian economic measures based on incredibly flimsy & suspect science, is indefensible.