I'm right here Nate. Just waiting for the hubbub to subside a bit so we can continue to look at the science, because at the end of the day, it is the truth about the way our global climate operates which should inform our policy direction.
Lynn and Tom are absolutely correct that it is the immediate, real problems of pollution, water supply, and environmental degradation which we need to concentrate on solving. The politicians are only too happy to go with 'global warming' because they can use this boogeyman to distract our attention from those real pressing issues.
As you pointed out yourself, Without China and India on board, we can only adapt to climatic changes anyway whether or not they are human influenced. China has been doing their own scientific study of temperature, and has reached the same conclusion the western sceptics have: the American global temperature reconstructions are overblown. The American DOE was funding the UK climate reserch unit, and got the answer they paid for there too, to give a semblance of 'consensus'.
The world has warmed, but not as much in recent times as the UHI riddled and maladjusted temperature reconstruction claims. The world has been warming since the end of the little ice age long before industrialization made any difference to co2 levels. Before that it cooled from the end of the medieval warm period. It an approx 900 year cycle we are just reaching the crest of around now.
A few pages back you dismissed the solar influence. AGW scientists don't however. Indeed they need solar influence to explain the ups and downs in global temperature prior to the increase in co2. And now that global temperature has levelled out for the last decade, they have suddenly rediscovered the sun again, and are re-working it into their models.
In short, instead of accepting their hypothesis has been falsified by the real world data, they are adding in ad hoc adjustments to save their model. This is bad science. The scientific method demands that when your model predictions have been falsified, you chuck out the hypothesis and start again.
That's what I have done, and what I have discovered is that I can offer a better and more realistic hypothesis based on solar influence, ocean heat retention and changing cloud albedo which does a better job of explaining the phenomena we see, enables me to make accurate predictions and fits the historical record better than co2 does.
I correctly predicted the last two cold winters using my solar-planetary energy model while the UK MET office and the NOAA told us we would have mild seasons, based on their co2 driven global warming model.
I'm telling you now that the air and sea temperatures are about to start plunging,
The coming northern hemisphere winter will be very cold, with much less snow than last winter in the South West of the U.S. But the snow that does fall will stay on the ground much longer in sustained freezing cold spells.
The Arctic will continue to recover in terms of ice area, as it has since 2007. Global sea ice levels will rise further above the 30 year average than they are now. Ice area doesn't lie, unlike the inaccurate global temperature graphs rammed down out throats by NOAA, NCDC, CRU and GISS.
The next couple of summers in the NH will be ok, unless a big volcano goes off (very likely soon), but by the end of summer 2014 the falling ocean heat content will lower atmospheric temperatures markedly and the real cold will start to kick in.
I sentence you to remember this forecast in the coming years, along with your jibes about "Holocaust Denial", "head in the sand no PHD science" and all the rest of the crap you threw at me.