DutchRoll, you are arguing from a position with one very large misconception. It took me a while to understand why you defended the hockey stick and the models in earlier posts. You have succumbed to the
PR of the alarmists. You think you are right and in a select and knowledgeable group. You have taken the position that you are defending the world, and anyone who denies your position must be wrong and committed to eliminating life on earth. Understandable, but one-eyed.
Skeptics are not anti-science, or against the science as the pro-AGWers (and others on here) label them and like to point out. They do not deny CO2 being a greenhouse gas. In fact, if you read the literature from the skeptical viewpoint, you’ll find that in general there is no problem with the science. It’s the inflated, catastrophic predictions of the pro-AGWers where the problem lies.
Whether the ice coverage goes up or down. Whether global temperatures go up or down. Whether sea levels, glaciers and CO2 levels go up or down, is really beside the point. That’s what they do. That human activities are having some influence on the global climate is not denied. Yes, we’re putting additional CO2 into the atmosphere: somewhere around 3-4% of the total as best we can tell. Yes, it will add a little heat to the atmosphere…a tiny amount. It’s in the catastrophic predictions where the problem lies.
The pro-AGWers have built their case on models that have produced a temperature hockey stick predicting global temperatures that should be on an exorbitant climb by now. The pro-AGWer predictions included an absence of snow in some locations, more severe storms, and accelerating sea level rise, etc. The hockey stick is based on the AGW presumption that increasing CO2 will cause a concurrent toppling of dominoes, so to speak, and cause the global temperature to increase. The pro-AGWers have managed to implement an effective and deliberate fear campaign based on these predictions. They’ve managed to get a large policy change implemented in Australia based on these predictions. They’ve publicly and most vocally stated that we should be seeing the evidence already. The hockey stick was their rallying cry.
Just one small problem: the lack of supporting evidence! (flyingfox take note.) Not evidence supporting natural global warming or natural climate change; there’s plenty of that: evidence validating the models and their predictions. There is absolutely NO prediction from the models, the hockey stick or the pro-AGWers for the current leveling of global temperatures and the drop in sea level. They can try and blame natural variations all they like. The subsequent problem with this line is that is that IF the pro-AGWers were so certain of the output of their models, why then didn’t they correctly factor the input of natural variations into their predictions? On the hockey stick predictions, the pro-AGW scientists even provided a range of increasing temperatures that included generous allowances for error. We are currently not even just a little bit, but WELL outside below the lowest range of those predictions and have been for some time. And it's trending away further.
The bottom line is that the models are wrong. The hockey stick is garbage. There is nothing else. The science isn’t wrong per se. It’s the conclusions leading to the predictions that are wrong. You’re stuck on supporting the theory of catastrophic global warming and it seems that you are the one denying the evidence. The pro-AGWers have made predictions based on a theory and on their assumptions. I don’t have a problem with that. Most of the limited science that I know, tells me that if my predictions don’t hold, then my theory and/or my assumptions must be in error and need to be re-evaluated. Even most politicians and their advisors can see this basic fact.
The pro-AGWers have tied their catastrophic warnings into political and ideological beliefs for a new world order. They can see the current evidence no longer supports their predictions. They are hoping and praying it turns around soon. The "scientist" within them would readily admit that they were wrong and set about re-evaluating their experiments and adjusting the models and the input to get it right. Just one small issue: they’ve taken a political stand. “I was wrong.” is a career ending statement for a politician.
P.S.: If Strim is still following the discussion, here's an article that might be of interest:
The Myth of Renewable Energy