"I thought that was what you meant and I agree, rex. Svensmark's work
is interesting, but that's about the limit of it. The proof of the
pudding here would be in the eating i.e. in the outcome global
temperatures. If Svensmark was correct and cosmic ray interactions
with water vapour and cloud-formation have such a controlling effect
effect, then a lower incidence of them would see lower temperatures.
If his theories were true, I theorise that global temperatures would
have fallen during the recent La Nina, which coincided with this
reduction in the sun's output during cycle 23 and the continuing
minimum at the start of cycle 24, which has effectively now lasted
for
20 months. During that time, every single month has been in its
respective top 10 warmest for 130 years (NOAA). Any sceptic who feels
that the sun is the main reason for warming temperatures over the
last
century has got to ask themselves questions about that.

Explain it someone!

In January 2008, when the last solar cycle ended, even Watts said
this; "Solar Cycle 24 has been the subject of much speculation due to
competing forecasts on whether it will be an highly active or a quiet
low cycle. If it is a low cycle, it may very well be a test of
validity for some CO2 based AGW theories. Only time will tell". Well
how much time do the sceptics and denialists need? There has been no
reduction in global temperatures during this unexpectedly long period
of low solar output.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/0...s-officially-s...

In addition, despite such low solar output and an El Nino which is
only still developing and is nowhere near the size of the "super" El
Nino of 1998, (and 1998 always forms the origin of denialist graphs -
see Joe Bastadi's TV graphs as an example) we are seeing temperatures
which are equivalent to this exceptional year. That El Nino did not
occur during a solar minimum either. Whenever I've posed that
question, denialists and hard-line sceptics dive for cover. So
explain
it guys!

The only way we can see whether the world is warming is the most
recent, but still long enough term trend through the last century and
especially the latter part of it and into the first decade of this.
If
other theories don't produce the goods in terms of an alternative -
and Svensmark's theories certainly don't - we have to fall back even
more strongly on the most likely theory; that CO2 is driving global
temperatures higher."

-----

Dawlish in another thread to me in October, 2009 -

"By your own admission, you don't have any answers to the no-
cooling-
in-2008-9 conundrum yourself, so why not accept the fact that the
lack
of effect of all the three factors I highlighted are actually likely
to point to GW continuing and that the continuation is very likely to
be due to the extra warming caused by CO2? Like I said, it's a very
difficult question to answer."

----------

My position:

I accept that the lack of effect of all the three factors
Dawlish highlighted are actually likely to point to GW
continuing for a few years BUT no more than that -

Dawlish here again:
"if Dr Svensmark
is entirely correct, why didn't we see global cooling when a lower
incidence of cosmic rays coincided with a La Nina AND a negative PDO?
Surely that triple whammy should have produced lower global
temperatures.................unfortunately it didn't and that leaves
you and a few others with some difficult explaining to do.

So, in a manner of speaking, Dr. Svensmark is not
entirely correct or rather, I say the effect of CO2 warming
will be countervailed, whether it is a Latif explanation
primarily or a Svensmark explanation primarily over the
next 20 years at least.

So, like a heck of lot of meteorologists, I hedge because
our climate science has inherent UNCERTAINTY as to
exact cause and effect for the rest of our lives.

So, cosmic rays do not have "such a controlling" effect.

But, they have some effect. Is it more than minor? How
much effect is the scientific question. CERN will greatly help
answer the question IMHO but we have to be patient with the
time delay.

Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds
Svensmark, Henrik; Bondo, Torsten; Svensmark, Jacob

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009GeoRL..3615101S

---

5 cites on Svensmark

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...=2009GeoRL..36...

---

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/loui...BLH4PVNHPL3CMM

GlynnMhor:

Extract -
From the [recent Solomon] article:

"Why did the water vapor decrease? "We really don't know," says
Solomon, "We don't have enough information yet.""

CERN is now running an experiment called CLOUD which studies the
formation of clouds and the retention of water vapour in the
atmosphere in response to varying factors (temperature,
pressure==altitude, humidity) and in particular changing cosmic ray
flux, simulated by one of their accelerators governs.

This will provide a direct test of Svensmark's hypothesis
from Forbush decrease events that increased CR flux
removes water vapour, thus cooling the globe.

---

I found the 5 cites on Svensmark giving contradictory
results. This anomaly demands scientific resolution
ASAP.

David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA

On Feb 3, 11:10*pm, Meteorologist wrote:
"I thought that was what you meant and I agree, rex. Svensmark's work
is interesting, but that's about the limit of it. The proof of the
pudding here would be in the eating i.e. in the outcome global
temperatures. If Svensmark was correct and cosmic ray interactions
with water vapour and cloud-formation have such a controlling effect
effect, then a lower incidence of them would see lower temperatures.
If his theories were true, I theorise that global temperatures would
have fallen during the recent La Nina, which coincided with this
reduction in the sun's output during cycle 23 and the continuing
minimum at the start of cycle 24, which has effectively now lasted
for
20 months. During that time, every single month has been in its
respective top 10 warmest for 130 years (NOAA). Any sceptic who feels
that the sun is the main reason for warming temperatures over the
last
century has got to ask themselves questions about that.

Explain it someone!

In January 2008, when the last solar cycle ended, even Watts said
this; "Solar Cycle 24 has been the subject of much speculation due to
competing forecasts on whether it will be an highly active or a quiet
low cycle. If it is a low cycle, it may very well be a test of
validity for some CO2 based AGW theories. Only time will tell". Well
how much time do the sceptics and denialists need? There has been no
reduction in global temperatures during this unexpectedly long period
of low solar output.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/0...s-officially-s...

In addition, despite such low solar output and an El Nino which is
only still developing and is nowhere near the size of the "super" El
Nino of 1998, (and 1998 always forms the origin of denialist graphs -
see Joe Bastadi's TV graphs as an example) we are seeing temperatures
which are equivalent to this exceptional year. That El Nino did not
occur during a solar minimum either. Whenever I've posed that
question, denialists and hard-line sceptics dive for cover. So
explain
it guys!

The only way we can see whether the world is warming is the most
recent, but still long enough term trend through the last century and
especially the latter part of it and into the first decade of this.
If
other theories don't produce the goods in terms of an alternative -
and Svensmark's theories certainly don't - we have to fall back even
more strongly on the most likely theory; that CO2 is driving global
temperatures higher."

-----

Dawlish in another thread to me in October, 2009 -

"By your own admission, you don't *have any answers to the no-
cooling-
in-2008-9 conundrum yourself, so why not accept the fact that the
lack
of effect of all the three factors I highlighted are actually likely
to point to GW continuing and that the continuation is very likely to
be due to the extra warming caused by CO2? Like I said, it's a very
difficult question to answer."

----------

My position:

I accept that the lack of effect of all the three factors
Dawlish highlighted are actually likely to point to GW
continuing for a few years BUT no more than that -

Dawlish here again:
"if Dr Svensmark
is entirely correct, why didn't we see global cooling when a lower
incidence of cosmic rays coincided with a La Nina AND a negative PDO?
Surely that triple whammy should have produced lower global
temperatures.................unfortunately it didn't and that leaves
you and a few others with some difficult explaining to do.

So, in a manner of speaking, Dr. Svensmark is not
entirely correct or rather, I say the effect of CO2 warming
will be countervailed, whether it is a Latif explanation
primarily or a Svensmark explanation primarily over the
next 20 years at least.

So, like a heck of lot of meteorologists, I hedge because
our climate science has inherent UNCERTAINTY as to
exact cause and effect for the rest of our lives.

So, cosmic rays do not have "such a controlling" effect.

But, they have some effect. *Is it more than minor? *How
much effect is the scientific question. *CERN will greatly help
answer the question IMHO but we have to be patient with the
time delay.

Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds
Svensmark, Henrik; Bondo, Torsten; Svensmark, Jacob

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009GeoRL..3615101S

---

5 cites on Svensmark

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...=2009GeoRL..36....

---

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/loui...BLH4PVNHPL3CMM

GlynnMhor:

Extract -
From the [recent Solomon] article:

"Why did the water vapor decrease? "We really don't know," says
Solomon, "We don't have enough information yet.""

CERN is now running an experiment called CLOUD which studies the
formation of clouds and the retention of water vapour in the
atmosphere in response to varying factors (temperature,
pressure==altitude, humidity) and in particular changing cosmic ray
flux, simulated by one of their accelerators governs.

This will provide a direct test of Svensmark's hypothesis
from Forbush decrease events that increased CR flux
removes water vapour, thus cooling the globe.

---

I found the 5 cites on Svensmark giving contradictory
results. *This anomaly demands scientific resolution
ASAP.

David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA

So; despite all the present evidence for warming, you'd rather believe
what someone else thinks might happen over the next 20 years.

OK. Come back then and we'll talk Crunchy.

On Feb 4, 3:23*am, Dawlish wrote:
On Feb 3, 11:10*pm, Meteorologist wrote:





"I thought that was what you meant and I agree, rex. Svensmark's work
is interesting, but that's about the limit of it. The proof of the
pudding here would be in the eating i.e. in the outcome global
temperatures. If Svensmark was correct and cosmic ray interactions
with water vapour and cloud-formation have such a controlling effect
effect, then a lower incidence of them would see lower temperatures.
If his theories were true, I theorise that global temperatures would
have fallen during the recent La Nina, which coincided with this
reduction in the sun's output during cycle 23 and the continuing
minimum at the start of cycle 24, which has effectively now lasted
for
20 months. During that time, every single month has been in its
respective top 10 warmest for 130 years (NOAA). Any sceptic who feels
that the sun is the main reason for warming temperatures over the
last
century has got to ask themselves questions about that.

Explain it someone!

In January 2008, when the last solar cycle ended, even Watts said
this; "Solar Cycle 24 has been the subject of much speculation due to
competing forecasts on whether it will be an highly active or a quiet
low cycle. If it is a low cycle, it may very well be a test of
validity for some CO2 based AGW theories. Only time will tell". Well
how much time do the sceptics and denialists need? There has been no
reduction in global temperatures during this unexpectedly long period
of low solar output.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/0...s-officially-s...

In addition, despite such low solar output and an El Nino which is
only still developing and is nowhere near the size of the "super" El
Nino of 1998, (and 1998 always forms the origin of denialist graphs -
see Joe Bastadi's TV graphs as an example) we are seeing temperatures
which are equivalent to this exceptional year. That El Nino did not
occur during a solar minimum either. Whenever I've posed that
question, denialists and hard-line sceptics dive for cover. So
explain
it guys!

The only way we can see whether the world is warming is the most
recent, but still long enough term trend through the last century and
especially the latter part of it and into the first decade of this.
If
other theories don't produce the goods in terms of an alternative -
and Svensmark's theories certainly don't - we have to fall back even
more strongly on the most likely theory; that CO2 is driving global
temperatures higher."

-----

Dawlish in another thread to me in October, 2009 -

"By your own admission, you don't *have any answers to the no-
cooling-
in-2008-9 conundrum yourself, so why not accept the fact that the
lack
of effect of all the three factors I highlighted are actually likely
to point to GW continuing and that the continuation is very likely to
be due to the extra warming caused by CO2? Like I said, it's a very
difficult question to answer."

----------

My position:

I accept that the lack of effect of all the three factors
Dawlish highlighted are actually likely to point to GW
continuing for a few years BUT no more than that -

Dawlish here again:
"if Dr Svensmark
is entirely correct, why didn't we see global cooling when a lower
incidence of cosmic rays coincided with a La Nina AND a negative PDO?
Surely that triple whammy should have produced lower global
temperatures.................unfortunately it didn't and that leaves
you and a few others with some difficult explaining to do.

So, in a manner of speaking, Dr. Svensmark is not
entirely correct or rather, I say the effect of CO2 warming
will be countervailed, whether it is a Latif explanation
primarily or a Svensmark explanation primarily over the
next 20 years at least.

So, like a heck of lot of meteorologists, I hedge because
our climate science has inherent UNCERTAINTY as to
exact cause and effect for the rest of our lives.

So, cosmic rays do not have "such a controlling" effect.

But, they have some effect. *Is it more than minor? *How
much effect is the scientific question. *CERN will greatly help
answer the question IMHO but we have to be patient with the
time delay.

Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds
Svensmark, Henrik; Bondo, Torsten; Svensmark, Jacob

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009GeoRL..3615101S

---

5 cites on Svensmark

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...=2009GeoRL..36....

---

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/loui...BLH4PVNHPL3CMM

GlynnMhor:

Extract -
From the [recent Solomon] article:

"Why did the water vapor decrease? "We really don't know," says
Solomon, "We don't have enough information yet.""

CERN is now running an experiment called CLOUD which studies the
formation of clouds and the retention of water vapour in the
atmosphere in response to varying factors (temperature,
pressure==altitude, humidity) and in particular changing cosmic ray
flux, simulated by one of their accelerators governs.

This will provide a direct test of Svensmark's hypothesis
from Forbush decrease events that increased CR flux
removes water vapour, thus cooling the globe.

---

I found the 5 cites on Svensmark giving contradictory
results. *This anomaly demands scientific resolution
ASAP.

David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA

So; despite all the present evidence for warming, you'd rather believe
what someone else thinks might happen over the next 20 years.

OK. Come back then and we'll talk Crunchy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Dawlish,

You really have never properly understood my thinking
because you hardly ever tried. Yes, Latif does figure in
my thinking. He said "may", not that it definitely would.
Further, the oceanographers have something valuable to
add to the climate science debate, as you yourself must
know and do know in my opinion.

You are rude and arrogant here for no reason. You got
a distorted view of me in part because of my attackers
from soc.religion.quaker. Once God helped me stabalize
the situation there, that freed me up to come on
uk.sci.weather without any crossposting. You invited
me, remember?

In the future, if you want to get along with me, refrain
from calling me Crunchy.

IOW be polite and informative.

BTW I regard you as a good meteorologist from
which other people may learn to their benefit.

Best,
David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA

On Feb 4, 3:18*pm, Meteorologist wrote:
On Feb 4, 3:23*am, Dawlish wrote:





On Feb 3, 11:10*pm, Meteorologist wrote:

"I thought that was what you meant and I agree, rex. Svensmark's work
is interesting, but that's about the limit of it. The proof of the
pudding here would be in the eating i.e. in the outcome global
temperatures. If Svensmark was correct and cosmic ray interactions
with water vapour and cloud-formation have such a controlling effect
effect, then a lower incidence of them would see lower temperatures.
If his theories were true, I theorise that global temperatures would
have fallen during the recent La Nina, which coincided with this
reduction in the sun's output during cycle 23 and the continuing
minimum at the start of cycle 24, which has effectively now lasted
for
20 months. During that time, every single month has been in its
respective top 10 warmest for 130 years (NOAA). Any sceptic who feels
that the sun is the main reason for warming temperatures over the
last
century has got to ask themselves questions about that.

Explain it someone!

In January 2008, when the last solar cycle ended, even Watts said
this; "Solar Cycle 24 has been the subject of much speculation due to
competing forecasts on whether it will be an highly active or a quiet
low cycle. If it is a low cycle, it may very well be a test of
validity for some CO2 based AGW theories. Only time will tell". Well
how much time do the sceptics and denialists need? There has been no
reduction in global temperatures during this unexpectedly long period
of low solar output.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/0...s-officially-s....

In addition, despite such low solar output and an El Nino which is
only still developing and is nowhere near the size of the "super" El
Nino of 1998, (and 1998 always forms the origin of denialist graphs -
see Joe Bastadi's TV graphs as an example) we are seeing temperatures
which are equivalent to this exceptional year. That El Nino did not
occur during a solar minimum either. Whenever I've posed that
question, denialists and hard-line sceptics dive for cover. So
explain
it guys!

The only way we can see whether the world is warming is the most
recent, but still long enough term trend through the last century and
especially the latter part of it and into the first decade of this.
If
other theories don't produce the goods in terms of an alternative -
and Svensmark's theories certainly don't - we have to fall back even
more strongly on the most likely theory; that CO2 is driving global
temperatures higher."

-----

Dawlish in another thread to me in October, 2009 -

"By your own admission, you don't *have any answers to the no-
cooling-
in-2008-9 conundrum yourself, so why not accept the fact that the
lack
of effect of all the three factors I highlighted are actually likely
to point to GW continuing and that the continuation is very likely to
be due to the extra warming caused by CO2? Like I said, it's a very
difficult question to answer."

----------

My position:

I accept that the lack of effect of all the three factors
Dawlish highlighted are actually likely to point to GW
continuing for a few years BUT no more than that -

Dawlish here again:
"if Dr Svensmark
is entirely correct, why didn't we see global cooling when a lower
incidence of cosmic rays coincided with a La Nina AND a negative PDO?
Surely that triple whammy should have produced lower global
temperatures.................unfortunately it didn't and that leaves
you and a few others with some difficult explaining to do.

So, in a manner of speaking, Dr. Svensmark is not
entirely correct or rather, I say the effect of CO2 warming
will be countervailed, whether it is a Latif explanation
primarily or a Svensmark explanation primarily over the
next 20 years at least.

So, like a heck of lot of meteorologists, I hedge because
our climate science has inherent UNCERTAINTY as to
exact cause and effect for the rest of our lives.

So, cosmic rays do not have "such a controlling" effect.

But, they have some effect. *Is it more than minor? *How
much effect is the scientific question. *CERN will greatly help
answer the question IMHO but we have to be patient with the
time delay.

Cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds
Svensmark, Henrik; Bondo, Torsten; Svensmark, Jacob

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009GeoRL..3615101S

---

5 cites on Svensmark

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...=2009GeoRL..36...

---

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/loui...BLH4PVNHPL3CMM

GlynnMhor:

Extract -
From the [recent Solomon] article:

"Why did the water vapor decrease? "We really don't know," says
Solomon, "We don't have enough information yet.""

CERN is now running an experiment called CLOUD which studies the
formation of clouds and the retention of water vapour in the
atmosphere in response to varying factors (temperature,
pressure==altitude, humidity) and in particular changing cosmic ray
flux, simulated by one of their accelerators governs.

This will provide a direct test of Svensmark's hypothesis
from Forbush decrease events that increased CR flux
removes water vapour, thus cooling the globe.

---

I found the 5 cites on Svensmark giving contradictory
results. *This anomaly demands scientific resolution
ASAP.

David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA

So; despite all the present evidence for warming, you'd rather believe
what someone else thinks might happen over the next 20 years.

OK. Come back then and we'll talk Crunchy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hi Dawlish,

Hi Crunchy,


You really have never properly understood my thinking
because you hardly ever tried. *Yes, Latif does figure in
my thinking. *He said "may", not that it definitely would.
Further, the oceanographers have something valuable to
add to the climate science debate, as you yourself must
know and do know in my opinion.

I have read Latif's work and I'm aware of the complete
misrepresentation, by the denialist community, of his conclusions. I
find his work interesting, no more and it is not backed by recent
global temperature rises at all. By Latif, Svensmark and all the
others you continue to cross-post about, it shouild have got cooler
over the last 2 years. It didn't.

You are rude and arrogant here for no reason. *

I don't suffer arrogant fools gladly and I'll happily give them back
the same, if you don't mind. Best not to *tell* people to "discuss"
your Internet trawls and then say you won't talk to people unless they
address you as Sir Crunchy.

You got
a distorted view of me in part because of my attackers
from soc.religion.quaker. *

I'm quite capable of making my own mind up about anyone Crunchy. It
wasn't difficult to make my mind up about you. The next paragraph
confirms my judgement.

Once God helped me stabalize
the situation there, that freed me up to come on
uk.sci.weather without any crossposting. *You invited
me, remember?

Gods have nothing to do with this. I invited you nowhere. If you have
a direct line to a god, wish her, or him, all the best from me.


In the future, if you want to get along with me, refrain
from calling me Crunchy.

You'll always be Crunchy to me. If you don't like me calling you
Crunchy, don't talk to me. Easy eh?


- Show quoted text -

On Feb 4, 10:37*am, Dawlish wrote:
On Feb 4, 3:18*pm, Meteorologist wrote:
...
Hi Dawlish,

Hi Crunchy,

Bad move.

You really have never properly understood my thinking
because you hardly ever tried. *Yes, Latif does figure in
my thinking. *He said "may", not that it definitely would.
Further, the oceanographers have something valuable to
add to the climate science debate, as you yourself must
know and do know in my opinion.

I have read Latif's work and I'm aware of the complete
misrepresentation, by the denialist community, of his conclusions.

This is hardly news to me. To make it perfectly
clear, I agree with you here. Further, I read Latif's
own public statement on the matter.

I
find his work interesting, no more and it is not backed by recent
global temperature rises at all.

My advice for you is to judge by the thing itself - Latif's work.
Moving on, I do not disagree with your exact words here.

By Latif, Svensmark and all the
others you continue to cross-post about, it shouild have got cooler
over the last 2 years. It didn't.

Currently, I am doing zero crossposting. Further, you seem
completely unaware of my recent posts on the Susan Solomon
paper on water vapor. Further, I agree with you to the extent
of the bare fact that it did not get cooler over the last 2 years.

Moving on, I do not disagree with your exact words here.

So, what is really going on in our usenet interaction is your
misguage of my position in the climate science debate.

Further, I will now give you a heads-up on part of my highly usual
background -

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL -

a) my late father was a psychiatrist
b) I was research assistant long ago at Tufts University
in Small Groups Pschology to Dr. Thornton Roby, who
was brilliant and world famous.
c) I have done marriage counseling out of idealism for free

So, yes, I study the contrarians in the climate science debate
but out of the psychological angle for my own private reasons -

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of
global warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...global_warming

CLIMATE SCIENCE

I am governed by the scientifc evidence and nothing but.
All aspects of meteorology are the love of my life.

You are rude and arrogant here for no reason. *

I don't suffer arrogant fools gladly and I'll happily give them back
the same, if you don't mind.

I have said the same on usenet once in a while.
Yet, I modestly suggest that the climate science
debate is so important that extraordinary diplomacy
is necessary in conversation.

*Best not to **tell* people to "discuss"
your Internet trawls and then say you won't talk to people unless they
address you as Sir Crunchy.

Bogus.

You got

a distorted view of me in part because of my attackers
from soc.religion.quaker. *

I'm quite capable of making my own mind up about anyone Crunchy. It
wasn't difficult to make my mind up about you. The next paragraph
confirms my judgement.

Bad move; call me David, please. Further, respectfully,
you need to review your flawed judgement.

Once God helped me stabalize

the situation there, that freed me up to come on
uk.sci.weather without any crossposting. *You invited
me, remember?

Gods have nothing to do with this. I invited you nowhere. If you have
a direct line to a god, wish her, or him, all the best from me.

You forget I was both an Episcopalian and a Friend for
quite a number of years. This is the way we talk. So,
with God's help (Episcopalian terminology), I will carry on.

Further, you are not entirely truthful here. Recently, you
mentioned the possibility of my coming on uk.sci.weather
without crossposting.

In the future, if you want to get along with me, refrain
from calling me Crunchy.

*You'll always be Crunchy to me. If you don't like me calling you
Crunchy, don't talk to me. Easy eh?

Excuse me, you are using bad psychology.

Forget about me personally for the moment.

If you, me, or anybody wants to work with people,
to co-operate with other climate scientists, such
a person must be polite and informative.

So, in the case of the climate science debate, as
I said before, diplomacy must have a very high priority.

David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA

On Feb 4, 4:59*pm, Meteorologist wrote:
On Feb 4, 10:37*am, Dawlish wrote:

On Feb 4, 3:18*pm, Meteorologist wrote:
...
Hi Dawlish,

Hi Crunchy,

Bad move.

You really have never properly understood my thinking
because you hardly ever tried. *Yes, Latif does figure in
my thinking. *He said "may", not that it definitely would.
Further, the oceanographers have something valuable to
add to the climate science debate, as you yourself must
know and do know in my opinion.

I have read Latif's work and I'm aware of the complete
misrepresentation, by the denialist community, of his conclusions.

This is hardly news to me. *To make it perfectly
clear, I agree with you here. *Further, I read Latif's
own public statement on the matter.

I
find his work interesting, no more and it is not backed by recent
global temperature rises at all.

My advice for you is to judge by the thing itself - Latif's work.
Moving on, I do not disagree with your exact words here.

By Latif, Svensmark and all the
others you continue to cross-post about, it shouild have got cooler
over the last 2 years. It didn't.

Currently, I am doing zero crossposting. *Further, you seem
completely unaware of my recent posts on the Susan Solomon
paper on water vapor. *Further, I agree with you to the extent
of the bare fact that it did not get cooler over the last 2 years.

Moving on, I do not disagree with your exact words here.

So, what is really going on in our usenet interaction is your
misguage of my position in the climate science debate.

Further, I will now give you a heads-up on part of my highly usual
background -

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL -

a) my late father was a psychiatrist
b) I was research assistant long ago at Tufts University
* * in Small Groups Pschology to Dr. Thornton Roby, who
* * was brilliant and world famous.
c) I have done marriage counseling out of idealism for free

So, yes, I study the contrarians in the climate science debate
but out of the psychological angle for my own private reasons -

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of
global warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...g_the_mainstre...

CLIMATE SCIENCE

I am governed by the scientifc evidence and nothing but.
All aspects of meteorology are the love of my life.

You are rude and arrogant here for no reason. *

I don't suffer arrogant fools gladly and I'll happily give them back
the same, if you don't mind.

I have said the same on usenet once in a while.
Yet, I modestly suggest that the climate science
debate is so important that extraordinary diplomacy
is necessary in conversation.

*Best not to **tell* people to "discuss"
your Internet trawls and then say you won't talk to people unless they
address you as Sir Crunchy.

Bogus.

You got

a distorted view of me in part because of my attackers
from soc.religion.quaker. *

I'm quite capable of making my own mind up about anyone Crunchy. It
wasn't difficult to make my mind up about you. The next paragraph
confirms my judgement.

Bad move; call me David, please. *Further, respectfully,
you need to review your flawed judgement.

Once God helped me stabalize

the situation there, that freed me up to come on
uk.sci.weather without any crossposting. *You invited
me, remember?

Gods have nothing to do with this. I invited you nowhere. If you have
a direct line to a god, wish her, or him, all the best from me.

You forget I was both an Episcopalian and a Friend for
quite a number of years. *This is the way we talk. *So,
with God's help (Episcopalian terminology), I will carry on.

Further, you are not entirely truthful here. *Recently, you
mentioned the possibility of my coming on uk.sci.weather
without crossposting.

In the future, if you want to get along with me, refrain
from calling me Crunchy.

*You'll always be Crunchy to me. If you don't like me calling you
Crunchy, don't talk to me. Easy eh?

Excuse me, you are using bad psychology.

Forget about me personally for the moment.

If you, me, or anybody wants to work with people,
to co-operate with other climate scientists, such
a person must be polite and informative.

So, in the case of the climate science debate, as
I said before, diplomacy must have a very high priority.

David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA

Bye Crunchy.

On Feb 4, 12:31*pm, Dawlish wrote:
On Feb 4, 4:59*pm, Meteorologist wrote:





On Feb 4, 10:37*am, Dawlish wrote:

On Feb 4, 3:18*pm, Meteorologist wrote:
...
Hi Dawlish,

Hi Crunchy,

Bad move.

You really have never properly understood my thinking
because you hardly ever tried. *Yes, Latif does figure in
my thinking. *He said "may", not that it definitely would.
Further, the oceanographers have something valuable to
add to the climate science debate, as you yourself must
know and do know in my opinion.

I have read Latif's work and I'm aware of the complete
misrepresentation, by the denialist community, of his conclusions.

This is hardly news to me. *To make it perfectly
clear, I agree with you here. *Further, I read Latif's
own public statement on the matter.

I
find his work interesting, no more and it is not backed by recent
global temperature rises at all.

My advice for you is to judge by the thing itself - Latif's work.
Moving on, I do not disagree with your exact words here.

By Latif, Svensmark and all the
others you continue to cross-post about, it shouild have got cooler
over the last 2 years. It didn't.

Currently, I am doing zero crossposting. *Further, you seem
completely unaware of my recent posts on the Susan Solomon
paper on water vapor. *Further, I agree with you to the extent
of the bare fact that it did not get cooler over the last 2 years.

Moving on, I do not disagree with your exact words here.

So, what is really going on in our usenet interaction is your
misguage of my position in the climate science debate.

Further, I will now give you a heads-up on part of my highly usual
background -

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL -

a) my late father was a psychiatrist
b) I was research assistant long ago at Tufts University
* * in Small Groups Pschology to Dr. Thornton Roby, who
* * was brilliant and world famous.
c) I have done marriage counseling out of idealism for free

So, yes, I study the contrarians in the climate science debate
but out of the psychological angle for my own private reasons -

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of
global warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...g_the_mainstre...

CLIMATE SCIENCE

I am governed by the scientifc evidence and nothing but.
All aspects of meteorology are the love of my life.

You are rude and arrogant here for no reason. *

I don't suffer arrogant fools gladly and I'll happily give them back
the same, if you don't mind.

I have said the same on usenet once in a while.
Yet, I modestly suggest that the climate science
debate is so important that extraordinary diplomacy
is necessary in conversation.

*Best not to **tell* people to "discuss"
your Internet trawls and then say you won't talk to people unless they
address you as Sir Crunchy.

Bogus.

You got

a distorted view of me in part because of my attackers
from soc.religion.quaker. *

I'm quite capable of making my own mind up about anyone Crunchy. It
wasn't difficult to make my mind up about you. The next paragraph
confirms my judgement.

Bad move; call me David, please. *Further, respectfully,
you need to review your flawed judgement.

Once God helped me stabalize

the situation there, that freed me up to come on
uk.sci.weather without any crossposting. *You invited
me, remember?

Gods have nothing to do with this. I invited you nowhere. If you have
a direct line to a god, wish her, or him, all the best from me.

You forget I was both an Episcopalian and a Friend for
quite a number of years. *This is the way we talk. *So,
with God's help (Episcopalian terminology), I will carry on.

Further, you are not entirely truthful here. *Recently, you
mentioned the possibility of my coming on uk.sci.weather
without crossposting.

In the future, if you want to get along with me, refrain
from calling me Crunchy.

*You'll always be Crunchy to me. If you don't like me calling you
Crunchy, don't talk to me. Easy eh?

Excuse me, you are using bad psychology.

Forget about me personally for the moment.

If you, me, or anybody wants to work with people,
to co-operate with other climate scientists, such
a person must be polite and informative.

So, in the case of the climate science debate, as
I said before, diplomacy must have a very high priority.

David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA

Bye Crunchy.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You are a petty twit for no good reason; everybody
can see it.

David Christainsen
Newton, Mass. USA