If those experts actually have a point, anything that can be described as a small lifestyle change will be as effective as trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

Insightful but I'm not sure which side your referring to.

Wine Grapes growing in England isn't exceptional, I've grown grown wine grapes in Michigan back when the newpapers were reporting predictions of a coming Ice-Age. When wine grapes stop growing in England we have a problem; the World will not end in fire, it'll end in ice.

I think you've been consorting with Lewandowski and his minions too long.

And Water vapor transport vast amounts of heat from the surface to high altitudes and clouds are a great reflector of short-wave light reducing the amount of short-wave light to be re-radiated as long-wave IR; whether water vapor is a positive or a negative feedback is a point of contention.

Even the Alarmists at Real Climate don't support Arctic methane tripping points.

Now I wish I had mod-points, for that was truly insightful.

Climatology would be much further along if the data and models were vetted through real Econometricians and Statisticians first, at least they will consider if the Drunk and the Puppy are Cointegrated.

Don't worry, Einstein didn't believe in it either; although he did get a Nobel prize in Physics for his work in it.

While they aren't Neural Networks, they do simulations in hindcasting mode, using historical data and tweeking program parameters until the resulting output resembles historic results. This is necessary because while they are very good at simulating the understood physics, the amount of physics they understand is embarrassingly small compared to the total system.
Additionally when you reference link that uses a Freeman Dyson quote and labels it a myth, you have assume a significant burden of proof, especially when the reference also links to

I have studied their climate models and know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics and do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields, farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in.
They are full of fudge factors that are fitted to the existing climate, so the models more or less agree with the observed data. But there is no reason to believe that the same fudge factors would give the right behaviour in a world with different chemistry, for example in a world with increased CO2 in the atmosphere.
Fighting climate 'fluff'

You'll really have to do better if you expect to be convincing.

Sorry should be Bifurcation diagram

Any natural balance seems to be four stable states, similar to a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...">Bifurcation diagram when r is 3.5, the two ice-age phases seem more stable that the two warm phases.

Well current temperatures have fallen below the 95% confidence band of the climate models predictions, so most reasonable scientists would say the hypothesis has been falsified on that basis; now that doesn't prove that GW is or isn't happening, it just proves the climate models are full of shit. Now that is not a surprise to anyone who has any formal training in Fortran and has looked at the source code. Even the input data is a horrific mess, little of it meets it's own data and formatting definitions.

There is little solid evidence that the past warming was either unusual or man-made and no evidence that the perceived trend will continue for centuries. There has been no warming for the past 17 years which was not predicted by the models which have been far better at hindcasting than forecasting. If we're going to teach kids science, lets teach them a science that isn't settled because the rent-seekers say it is, but is settled because the basic premises aren't argued on a daily basis.

Sorry I wasn't totally clear, there are no roads, railroads praved trails between Nome and Delta Junction Alaska, if you get from China to America via a rail tunnel across the Barring Straight to Alaska, your stuck. You can't drive from highly populated cities like Anchorage and Fairbanks to the state capital. If your going to load the cars onto a train ferry and ship the down to Vancouver or Seatle, you would have been better off just shipping via freighter.

You just don't realize how remote Alaska is, there are places where you literally can't get there from here.