Is this a convincing response to my answer?

Bob,

As far as most skeptics are concerned QM is either a Quarter Master or Quatermass, Thermo is a short for Thermoman - guardian of the universe, fluid dynamics is something to do with beer, spectroscopy is what a doctor has round his neck, atmospheric physics is a school lesson when you're stoned, physics is what you do in a phys ed class and chemistry is the stuff sold in a chemist shop. Beyond that most of them don't have a clue (as is clearly born out by the level of responses on here).

I couldn't begin to estimate the number of times that the skeptics have been pushed on this issue, it must run into the dozens and to date it's drawn a complete blank.

You'll have noticed that the majority of skeptics on here shy away from anything remotely technical or scientific. For example, the last question I answered was someone asking why the mass of CO2 produced when burning fuel was greater than the mass of the fuel. The question wasn't about who was right or wrong in the GW debate. Answering it does require some simple math and chemistry and on that basis I would bet there are very few, if any, skeptics that answers the question other than the stock 'it's a hoax' type answer.

The skeptics don't 'do' science and therein lies the crux of the problem - they're arguing against something they don't understand. What's the point in doing that.

I do wish they'd raise the standard of their arguments a bit then we could have a more intellectual discussion of the subject.

A couple of years back there was a genuinely intelligent skeptic on here who did understand the science (3DM), he provided some thought provoking questions that necessitated going away and doing some research. It was both fun and enlightening engaging in exchanges with him. I miss those days.

There will eventually come a response from someone who has no idea what

these terms mean. This person will promote the idea that, since the emails

were illegally hacked, we've been able to read what some scientists are saying

to each other, and he/she thinks one guy is hiding his report from someone else,

playing cat/mouse with the data. "How un-scientific".

This person will promote the politics of the right wing. Arguments about the

correctness of any scientific findings on AGW will prove the agenda of the

Conservatives.

Have fun with it!

Well for starters you have it all wrong. We do not have to prove anything. You are the one that says that this is sound science and that the debate is over. You prove it! You claim that based on your "sound science" that these positive feedbacks exists. Prove it. I asked a question on proof that the water vapour feedback exists, and the best answer was there is non because it is hard to measure. Where is your proof that clouds acts as a positive feedback and not a negative one? But without these feedbacks the warming we shall get will be a minor one instead of a major one.

As far as I am concerned, people who say that the debate is over, that the science is settled and we should blindly rush into co2 reduction programs, these people are scam artists.

It won't let me e-mail you, so I'll put it here. If you're interested in textbooks I recommend 'Climate Systems Modeling' by Trenberth. It's old now (nearly 20yrs!), but it certainly helped me grasp a few concepts!

I'll have a look for the Washington & Parkinson book in my library :)

What, you're not convinced by "read the news you douchebag"?

As you've undoubtedly noticed, it's not about science to the deniers, it's all about politics and conspiracy theories. Atmospheric CO2 keeps increasing, the planet keeps warming, ice keeps melting, sea level keeps rising, but Jones used the word "trick" in an email so none of that matters!

You're not going to get a reasonable response from unreasonable people. Especially since to be blunt, deniers are almost universally illiterate when it comes to basic climate science. And as Trevor points out, I doubt many of them could even deduce that QM refers to quantum mechanics or thermo to thermodynamics.

It's like asking a bible thumper to give a reasonable argument against evolution. It ain't gonna happen, but they'll sure have a fun time calling you a heretic who's going to burn in hell!

Approval and self-validation, a pat on the decrease back are all good needs, surprisingly in the portion of religion regardless of one's ideals. they're searching for some to trust them, absolutely everyone who will tell that their ******** ideals are ok. I see it a as an illustration of immaturity and lack of self belief to wish a stranger to validate our thoughts and that i'd desire to admit that I experience slightly it in myself at circumstances. yet do no longer all of us have that would desire to some volume? whilst i comprehend what i've got faith, I continually positioned the query to a vote as a fashion to no longer provide this effect and likewise to hearken to what different persons think of. Heavens! Did I say "pay attention to different persons?" What a singular theory. i'd desire to be directly to a minimum of a few thing!

I think you're looking at it wrong.

It's not the basics and the foundation of the theory that most (at least not me) are questioning.

It's the over-arching simplification of chaotic and not fully understood systems wrapped up in a tidy computer model predicting warming in the range of 2-8 degrees that I see as potentially erroneous.

Current computer models are designed to fit past data. Feedbacks and other mechanisms are completely ignored yet results are considered significant with no regard for the gaping hole of information left from the calculations. I understand that absorptive spectra and other forcings can be calculated and measured. but until every aspect of the climate from cloud cover to sparrow farts are included in the models they should be used only as a generator for future research and validation.

Now there seem to be quite a few on here who think that models are the bees knees, but they seem to justify oversimplification for the sake of pseudo-quantification a little too easily IMO.

Global warming? This hoax was started by some screw loose scientists in Great Britain,I think they must be the same ones who Found the Piltdown man.There is nothing to indicate a global warming problem,the last six years have been the coldest on record,as a matter of fact,it's colder than heck outside right now.

Can you explain how the scientific method is wrong?

AGW relies on computer models which use assumed global warming factors. They are not derived from first principles.

If AGW was science, there wouldn't be Noble Prize winners calling it a cult.

<sarcasm>Well they must fail, I don't know how they fail, but they must, otherwise global warming would be real and then driving Hummers would be bad.</sarcasm>