The question could be re-stated as ‘would the apparent cessation of the previous warming trend turn into a more substantial cooling trend’. The previously observed warming (to the extent it’s real and not an artifact of sampling error!) already appears to have ended, at least for the last decade. We do not know at this point (it seems to me) whether this will continue to be the case, or whether there will be other period(s) of warming, or whether we may see period(s) of cooling. But in any event, if criticism of the positive feedback mechanisms upon which Catastrophic Global Warming (utterly) rely is accurate, and such either doesn’t exist or is much less pronounced than AGW advocates contend, then whatever we do about CO2, whether we reduce or increase its emissions, won’t really matter a great deal, but be largely subsumed in other, as yet not fully understood, determinants of cyclical and irregular changes in climate trends.

“If the results are defined ahead of time, IT AIN’T SCIENCE[.]” And if the data are manipulated to achieve those desired results, it’s jobbery, and ANTI-SCIENCE.

Uh, I gots some newz fer yaz all —

If the results are defined ahead of time, IT AIN’T SCIENCE that’s getting funded.

The latter is certainly true if you assume space is warped in a certain specific way.

This number was derived by somebody counting up generations and date information in the bible.

Even the Young Earth types are not so foolish as to say that the earth started in the time of the Patriarchs – that wouldn’t fit their data set.

The problem with the AGW types is that they cannot even leave their dataset alone and interpret from there. They are compelled to alter (model) that data until it fits what they are after.

Yours paranoiacally

Successful candidates will:
1) Demonstrate AGW [ed: Anthropogenic Global Warming]
2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.
3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.

Saying you have encountered this is a lie. Not that that would bother you or most your readers.

Anyway. I just wanna see how other lay peeps come to their conclusions on this AGW issue. I am convinced that their is a scientific consensus that AGW is happening. This is founded on the widespread presentation of such in skeptical groups (like Australian skeptics). Popular science publications such as New Scientist, popular science celebs like Dr Karl, who are known for being skeptical. Maybe others I can’t think of right now.

Being a lay person, I cannot look at the research or data meaningfully, so I don’t. I can only look at the consensus.

To me, it is more rational to go with the consensus, is it not? This siding with the consensus would cease to exist if: It was shown that a consensus does not exist, that a fatal flaw in the science (monoculture, conspiracy…) was evident, that umm… I dunno what makes you suspicious of CC?

Sry if this has been covered before. I’m not trying to make enemies or friends, just trying to test my position. So go nuts.

Most of the consensus in climate science can be attributed to confirmation bias, self-selection, and one huge exogenous driver. Confirmation bias is when people who study climate sciences enter the field with a preconceived notion and go on to confirm that notion by drawing strong spurious connections between largely unrelated signals. Self-selection is that these Global Climate Change Conventions self-selects for those that believes humans are the cause of climate change. Finally there is one large exogenous driver, public funding from politicians who are either easily scared or want to scare easily scared people.

Any conspiracies that do happen, happen on a much smaller scale like the dozen or so people of ClimateGate.