Re D. To me it’s more a case of the doctor saying ‘Look, your still in fair shape, but there is, in my medical opinion, strong evidence if you carry on this way you might harm your health. I lack the ability to prove it, but: you keep adding to the things you do to your body that risk harm, the evidence that these things you do risks harm isn’t going away, indeed new evidence keeps appearing. I advise you to change your diet.’. Friends might say ‘enjoy life, do as you want, I know someone who say’s it’s not a problem’, others friends might say ‘think of you your friends and family and your other responsibilities. Listen to the doctor.’ – it’s a choice. Clearly I know what I’d do.

I don’t have strong objections to A and C – close to what I think.

Now, is it your coup de grace time or are we closer to agreeing to disagree?

Peter, my apologies for taking so long to respond, real world was interfering.

OK, I think I am getting a clearer idea of where you are coming from. Let me see if I can narrow it down a bit further. As I said previously, this is probably going to end up as agreeing to disagree; and as you said, we will have wait five to ten years for better data. But that’s fine, it is the nature of science.
To extend the idea of the categories ‘proven true’, ‘proven false’, and ‘not proven’ : the ‘not proven’ category is a fairly broad one, and it represents the battleground where science happens. It is normal for there to be champions of a particular theory who could be characterised as being out at the end of the ‘not proven’ category, trying to move their theory into ‘proven true’, preferably by means of experiment.

Although the second sentence of your post #33 does not explicitly say so, I interpret it as saying that your position is over at the ‘true’ end of ‘not proven’.
(Call this Point A.)

For the rest, you are saying :
1) there exists current anthropogenic CO2 growth,
2) there exists current global warming
3) there exists a known mechanism – the greenhouse effect – whereby 1) causes 2)
4) we don’t know of any effect that will be the opposite of 3)
Therefore, current GW is AGW.
(Call this Point B.)

Regarding models, you seem to be saying that you accept them, rather than that you are persuaded by them, by which I mean that your acceptance of AGW pre-dates these model results. If the model results had come out against your pre-existing position, you might have looked into them more closely, but since they supported your view, you have not done so. (Again, fair enough.) You don’t go for the extreme options but are happy with the moderate ones. The same goes for your view of climatologists en masse.
(Call this Point C.)

Finally, I remember seeing a post somewhere which seemed to fit your view of what we should be doing about emissions reductions, even if AGW is not proven. (It might actually have been from you, though I don’t recall exactly.) It compared the human race’s current position with an individual whose doctor says that there was a 50% chance that he has cancer. The post suggested that you should take treatment now, and not faff around looking for a second opinion, or hoping ti will go away by itself.
(Call this Point D.)

I’m a bit uncomfortable here because I am doing too much interpreting, which runs the risk of putting words in your mouth with which you do not agree (particularly with reference to Point D).
So could you tell me, do you feel that Points A to D above fairly summarise your position ?

And why exactly is that?

I agree with you. At present I believe there is no “objective” proof for AGW. The earth has been warming and cooling for millions of years, glaciers have grown and receeded all without any intervention from man. From what I have seen the only thing which some people have claimed as proof is based on climate models which can never be accurate. To my knowledge they have not been tested simulating past climate. Science requires theories to be tested and reproduced by others objectively. I would also put AGW in the category of “Not proven”. On top of that I bristle when others want to spent perhaps trillions of dollars on a problem which has not been “proven true”

firstly, remember I’m someone who thinks the warming will be 1-4C, that one degree – OK? Also, I don’t think I’ve claim ‘the warming’ in proven anthropogenic have I? Whatever, I see a world that has warmed. I think UHI’s are allowed for and I think the surface record is accurate to it’s specified limits. I think it’s clear humanity is responsible for the rise in CO2 concentration. It’s also clear we are ading other ghg’s to the atmosphere, and that there is a lag between emission and warming. I’m also of the view that the RSS satellite record better represents reality that the S&C one (but I also think the sat’s dodgy since the sensors are only supposed to be accurate to +- .2C (of the top of my head that is)). SO, for me, it’s clear the planet is warming, pretty fast too (and look at this year, on a par with ’98 but no El Nino…).

Now, I’m not a qualifed atmosphere scientist/physicist/meteorologist – nor have I ever pretended to be. I’m an interested underemployed amateur. I do, however, respect them as a body. As a body they seem to me to accept the predictions I do.

Models. Given the above I either have to say ‘I’m not an expert so I’m not going to try and refute them’ or I say ‘I’m not an expert but I know better than you do’. I go for the former. I do think that if you do a Stefan Boltzmann (I think he’s the one) you will get warming due to the extra CO2 (indeed, when you look carefully hardly anyone now claims there wont be some warming), I find it hard to accept there wont be feedback warming and I cant thing of counteracting feedback coolings. So, I’m happy with the model prediction, and, since I dislike extremes, I go for the middle view – back to 1-4C – push me and I’d say 2-3C. 1C, not much problem, 2C plus, things are getting dodgy.

How’s that? Religious probably

You’re welcome to present something Steve has published or stated concerning his published work which you think is a lie, but I think he would disprove it quite easily.

All hell would break loose if I made such an accusation of this place (yes, yes, I know this place is above such things but that naughty X, Y or Z climatologists aren’t).

To clarify : most propositions can be classified as either ‘proven true’, ‘proven false’ or ‘not proven’. Most new science will start in the ‘not proven’ category, and move to one of the other two categories as the evidence develops.

With regard to the proposition “current global warming is anthropogenic”: you clearly believe this, i.e., you categorise it as ‘proven true’. However, I do *not* categorise it as ‘proven false’. Even if M&M are proved correct in all respects, and MBH are proven to be completely bogus, the effect will be to leave the proposition in the category ‘not proven’, where I think it belongs.

Clearly, something has caused you to put the proposition in the category ‘proven true’. You say that what you regard as proof may not be sufficient proof for me: this is quite correct, and if it turns out to be the case, then we will agree to disagree, and await new evidence in either direction.

But my question remains, what is it that has caused you to categorise “current global warming is anthropogenic” as ‘proven true’ ? All the items you cite a few posts back could be categorised as either a) global warming is happening or b) “trust the scientists”. (Note that I am categorising any argument based on a black box climate model under b) . )
Please note that this is a perfectly serious question from my point of view. Something is making you believe in AGW, I am trying to understand what.

So. I categorise the proposition “current global warming is anthropogenic” as ‘not proven’. You categorise it as ‘proven true’. Why ?