BBD,

Sincere congratulations on being proved right regarding Fang et al, and for correctly pointing out that the contribution of CO2 to the net positive anthropogenic radiative forcing is no more than 50%. However, I also think it would be wise for all here to follow Richard's example and show a little humility.

Mike
You said there is absolutely no conflict in believing in a God and believing evolution takes place. How is that?

God once explained everything, now He explains almost nothing. God's been reducing a glorified Agony Aunt. If you believe in scientifically explaining everything, including evolution of living organisms, what does a God do at all? Where is the room for believing in God?

By the way, I am as annoyed with the new atheists/sceptics as any human being can possibly be. Consider this a brief religious interlude from another long-running religious interlude (i.e., CO2 worship)

Shub,

The conflict lies in believing in "scientifically explaining everything". Of course, I also completely agree with the similar criticism of the same position re God. What do I think? I'd be very happy to sign up to the sentiment expressed in the Feyerabend quote in the wiki article I linked.

Shub
I'm sorry but I really wouldn't know where to begin because the subject is massive and I don't know which bits of it are common ground.
I'll say two things:
The fact that God may have become little more than an agony aunt is not God's fault; it's how a lot of the modern world chooses to see him.
I don't accept the argument (implied) that God supposedly tinkers with everything all the time.
Chapter 1 of Genesis lays out the development of the world pretty much in the order that we understand life to have evolved. Nothing in the theory of evolution precludes the existence of a Supreme Being. I believe in both; I see no conflict between the two.
But then I don't believe that you can scientifically explain "everything". You can explain a daffodil as an entity; you can explain the reason for its colour and its perfume. I defy you to explain "scientifically" the effect it has on people or the effect that a mass of them had on Wordsworth, for example.

Philip

Thanks [...] for correctly pointing out that the contribution of CO2 to the net positive anthropogenic radiative forcing is no more than 50%.

But it is the single largest component. By far. AKA the dominant component. The single most important factor. The controlling factor. Etc.

Your pseudo-sceptic bias is showing.

However, I also think it would be wise for all here to follow Richard's example and show a little humility.

I'll consider it after certain commenters here admit that they were flat-out wrong. Why should I be the one to be humbled? I wasn't the one talking crap.

"Why should I be the one to be humbled? I wasn't the one talking crap."

Richard makes a distinction between what the "majority" thinks and what "everyone" thinks. From his comment, it is clear that he believes that everyone (who knows about the science) thinks CO2 has an impact on climate, whereas the majority think that CO2 is the largest component of RF. Different terminology, but "everyone" coincides with "consensus", and "majority" with "mainstream". Hence, there is a "consensus" (according to Curry) that sensitivity lies between 0-10 C and the "mainstream" view (if you will accept that this is expressed by the RS) is that it lies between 2-4.5C.

It's instructive to review the comments on this thread in the light of this distinction. If you do this, you find that you frequently use "consensus" when you mean "mainstream". Further, you also claim that CO2 dominance is a "consensus" position, when it is in fact the "mainstream" view. I therefore think that for you, the two terms are interchangeable: "consensus" and "mainstream". Possibly, this confusion over terms may help to explain the negative tone of much of this thread.

Philip

I'm going to politely ignore your contrived definitional hair-splitting.

As RB said, lawyerly. As opposed to constructive.

Possibly, this confusion over terms may help to explain the negative tone of much of this thread.

Nope. Artificial re-definitions of consensus and mainstream were not the problem. It was the ill-informed and mistaken commentary backed with a great deal of aggression.

Still amused by your flash of true colours at Dec 3, 2011 at 8:36 PM btw. Although your attempts to defend Spencer raised a thin smile too.

Sorry. I thought I'd actually said this, but I didn't.

Consensus = mainstream.

BBD, Just to remind you that this was Richard's hair splitting (if that's what it was), and not mine.