Right Zed,

This is the reply I very nearly posted earlier but people would have had apoplexy if I had I think. My guess is you rather enjoy the idea of that but it really does badly derail the thread.

I would hope you accept that I and many here have just as firm a belief in our position as you do. It's just the way things are and frankly I just find the entire issue fascinating. I wanted to have a more "general" chat with you about your motivations for adopting the stance that you do? You will have read every word I have written recently and you will know that I came from a position as ardent as you but began my descent to the dark side (can you "descend" to a side?..I dunno...never mind) about five years ago.

Personally Zed I am not going to get into any slanging matches with you but try to see me and others as not a waste of effort and more as people to be persuaded. Stop your bloody sniping girl....OK?. We have absolutely nothing to lose or gain form how the other thinks and lives. We are total strangers which is fine so just talk will you?.

I have a keen suspicion that the host has allowed you so far this time. Just observe the house rules.

Please.?

Andy

The earlier reply.

OK Zed, that's fair enough.Really.I am myself happy to state that I am most certainly NOT qualified to AUTHORITATIVELY comment on the subject. Just an interested bystander who happens to have a fairly significant (robust??!!) science education.

It is hard, to impossible, for a deeply held stance on any subject to be given justice in fora such as this. I am quite sure that you have read every word I have written in recent times. You are most certainly a glutton for punishment given your feelings (that WAS a joke, just in case it triggers your attack software ;-) ).
Given so you must know my own views and feelings etc etc...
I am going to assume from the way you have responded to me that you harbour no ill-will towards me (that was a compliment by the way).

With respect to the falsifiability criteria you proffered I am uncertain how to give an answer that would satisfy given my own total lack of specialist knowledge but will try.

There does now seem to be a very clear divergence of temperature trends from modeled predictions despite ongoing increases of CO2. This is central it would appear and certainly not consistent with theory and I have great trouble internalising the increased volume (confidence etc) of the catastrophic message being given (of progressive increases in temp with increases of greenhouse gas emissions). Would you please at least concede that something with this
isn't consistent?.

I have read that past prognostications of AGW did not limit sea ice loss just to the Northern Hemisphere but did include Antarctica. Neither of us will pull each others hair out about the trend in Antarctica. I also find myself wondering how to interpret Arctic Sea ice loss when the starting point for the used satellite data was during a cold spell (so the trend in regional warming would, in any event, be down until cooling intervened again). Additionally, global sea-ice cover is not showing any alarming downward trend. It just isn't.

My understanding is that sea levels HAVE been steadily rising over a very long time indeed (many centuries if not longer) with the greatest debate over whether the slope has altered in any significant way. Like all the rest though I am not qualified to judge in an authoritative way as I said above.

I really do not know at all enough to comment on glaciers other than I "know" that the Himalayan ones are NOT going to disappear by 2035 (Mr Pachauri was very naughty with that episode for sure but if one was to talk about qualifications, if, then he shouldn't have commented any more than I would have).

Time is going to tell either way Zed whatever happens in the world of geopolitics. You will agree with me on that Zed I know ( Your immediate instinct to that last bit will be "no I bloody don't!!..Just give a little time before a snap response though if you would be so kind?!).

Ah well girl. See you around I'm sure.

"Personally Zed I am not going to get into any slanging matches with you..."

Good luck with that one Andy.

I think of it as a form of martyrdom anyhow....

It really is fascinating though. In absolute truth we're all just a more educated bunch putting the world to rights when really REALLY all decisions are made elsewhere.

I would like to think that at least somebody out there who is in the decision-making loop who might read in quietly and observe our blatherings-on and possibly be swayed to some degree? That's actually why I bother anyway.

It's possible.

You are quite right though, partially, if Zed had engaged in some form she would not, in the short-term, have prevented herself from the ad-hom but I would not have responded in kind and most people would tone down....

Yeah yeah, deluding myself but I am offering myself freely as a target for such because it really has no effect on me (or Zed) and we're all just total strangers to each other anyhow..

Baa for now...