I'm glad that as gamers we can all agree on something as a community...

What kind of philistine has a computer, uses the internet, posts on forums, and yet doesn't play games?

What about the south east of America then?

retards don't seem to understand that extreme weather conditions are a byproduct of climate change.

I'm surprised none of our skeptics have made a fuss over the peer reviewed paper, Linzden and Choi 2009 (LC09), soon to be published in the Geophysical Research Letters of the American Geophysical Union which claims that the earth's "climate sensitivity", the degree the earth’s temperature responds to various forces of change, is about six times less than the “best estimate” put forth by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

I guess our skeptics don't really keep up much with the literature so for those interested here's a link.

http://masterresource.org/?p=4307

The actual paper itself is currently only available to AGU members but for anyone lucky enough to be one (or be willing to pay the $9) here's the link.

http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0916/2009GL039628/

However instead of waiting around for someone to notice this and start yet another round of discussion about yet another nail in the coffin of AGW there's already a full set of debunking for those with minds open enough to read them.

The following paper which itself is only (currently) available to AGU members addresses the same issues as Linzden and Choi 2009 but is much more supportive of current models is currently in press. Kevin Trenberth, John Fasullo, Chris O’Dell, and Takmeng Wong (henceforth TFOW10).

http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2009GL042314-pip.pdf

This is also supported by another yet to be released study.

http://www.agu.org.ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/journals/pip/gl/2009GL041889-pip.pdf

Both the above studies are announced and summarized at the following.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/first-published-response-to-lindzen-and-choi/

However there does exist some information in response that is currently accessible to the general public and is very unflattering of the work of Linzden and Choi.

For example from http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/01/lindzen-and-choi-unraveled/ which concludes.

The LC09 results are not robust.
LC09 misinterpret air-sea interactions in the tropics.
More robust methods show no discrepancies between models and observations.
LC09 have compared observations to models prescribed with incomplete forcings.
LC09 incorrectly compute the climate sensitivity.

Also from http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/a-rebuttal-to-a-cool-climate-paper/

"In a telephone interview today, Dr. Trenberth told me that the flaws in the Lindzen-Choi paper “have all the appearance of the authors having contrived to get the answer they got.”

Also http://thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/knowing-dick-about-climate-sensitivity/ provides extensive quotes directly from TFOW10.

Please.

Most skeptics, myself included, aren't close minded that humans could affect the climate.  We are skeptical about CO2 being the proposed culprit.

I don't lose sleep about the issue. If you want to believe CO2 is causing climate change then knock yourself out.  

The issue isn't very complex (the CO2 hypothesis anyway). It's just not that compelling.

But I understand that some people have a need to believe this. People have believed that humans can control the climate for thousands of years.  

The only time I start to care is when politicians try to use the CO2 hypothesis as an excuse to control our lives. 

I'd be more inclined to take the issue more seriously the moment its proponents start *behaving* as if it's a serious issue.

It is you that do not let facts dissuade you from your myths.

The issue isn’t whether extreme weather conditions occur naturally. The question is whether human activities are making extreme weather conditions more common, and/or more extreme.  and the answer to that is yes.

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-3.3.html

Like I said before, stick to things like making great games frogboy. You are manifestly unqualified to be “sceptical” of research you are incapable of making yourself.

Not really, only people with the requisite knowledge are qualified to be “sceptical” in this field. Those that do not possess such expertise are just armchair quarterbacks. True scepticism hinges upon evidence; ie if a certain amount of evidence supports a position then a person ceases to be sceptical regarding it. Since those best qualified to assess such evidence have a consensus position on at least the primary issue (does CO2 contribute to warming?) those that choose to ignore that are deniers, not sceptics.

No AGW “sceptics” are climate scientists, and none of these sceptics have published work that presents a meaningful challenge to the consensus. I certainly don’t go to a game designer if I need open heart surgery. To label oneself as a “sceptic” when they don’t have the understanding required to even make that judgement, just gives a bad name to real scepticism.

No, nothing of the sort. What I said, was that if you really are “questioning” the topic, then how about gaining an appropriate amount of knowledge with which to make your questioning valid?

How are you meant to be sceptical about the evidence for something if you don’t even understand the evidence to begin with?

Idiot.