We know from the AR4 that cloud albedo can potentially on its own cancel the effect of C02.

JM, although I think your point (i) is a fair paraphrase, to say that (i) implies (ii):

because there is room to accept a Gaia-like analysis – that it doesn’t matter what we do, the earth will still be cool and we can happily do what we want to it – that we should bet that you are right

is not. Firstly, I’m not putting forward a Gaia-like analysis, I’m simply arguing that the climate is a system that exhibits stability. Secondly, I’m not arguing that we can introduce any amount of CO2 into the atmosphere and this would be compensated by changes in cloud cover. I’m suggesting that the climate system has more than enough stability to absorb expected increases in CO2 over this century without encountering any ‘tipping points’.

Basic physics then says that temperature will increase as a result of fossil fuel burning. Geophysics is then quite clear that climate change will result.

JM, basic physics doesn’t get you more than 1.2 C for a doubling. We’ve already had 0.8 C over the last century. So were likely to experience another 0.4 C this century. Doesn’t appear catastrophic to me. You are going to have to stop behind the skirt called ‘basic physics’ if you’re going to argue that a doubling of CO2 is going to be catastrophic.

Dave, the magnitude of the change is arguable – I accept that – but it can be determined in a number of ways, including observation. There is consensus now that it is around 3C per doubling of CO2. (My personal view is that may be too conservative, which is given force by the fact that several measures such as ice extent are at the high end of the IPCC consensus, but that doesn’t matter. The consensus for climate sensitivity is 3C and that’s what I’ll stick with in public debate.)

JM, so the consensus has moved beyond the ‘basic physics’, and your personal view is not merely beyond the ‘basic physics’ but also beyond the ‘consensus’ view? How instructive.

Oh, and lets not forget rog:

DB says that clouds could cancel the effects of CO2, but they havent – temps and sea levels are up

Let me rephrase my initial remark a little better. The point about changes in cloud cover is not principally that minor changes in global cloud cover directly cancel out any changes that CO2 purportedly make even if we accept the IPCC line regarding CO2, but that if your involved in detection and attribution studies were you attempt to discern which or what precise forcings/ feedbacks are the cause of the present warming you need to now all of the changes in values for the terms that comprise the climate system. Now let me return to your comment, rog, firstly, the point is that in the circumstances where we have a low state of understanding, as the IPCC admits, of the role of clouds, statements such as yours are injudicious because you’re already attributing the changes in temp and sea level to CO2. And secondly, are any of the changes in temp or sea level beyond internal natural variability anyway? I think not.

On the contrary, it was not only believed but was the strategic rationale for Bill Clinton’s attack on the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in August 1998. Clinton’s Department of Justice made the connection legally official two months later for the November 1998 indictment of Osama bin Laden for the US embassy bombings in Africa.

Amazing he had time to write that book in between jacking off to children on the internet and trying to lure them to Burger King for his depraved pleasures. But hey, a paedophile’s word is his bond.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2010/01/ex-un-nuke-inspector-ritter-arrested-in-online-child-sex-sting/1

Hey, on that topic, JM. Some group of scientists have recently suggested that the way the world is going we’ll reach tipping point 450 PPM by 2035 as the poorer wrold is going to be burning up a relative feast.

At least it will be interesting.

Every major intel operation was saying there was WMD.

Gore, Clinton and senior officials in the former administration said there was.

The western intel services including the French were saying there was.

Hans Blix said there was.

The mid east countries thought there was.

Yet you had evidence there wasn’t. Interesting.

As for Saddam being hooked up with AQ, no one ever really believed that

I dispute that, I think the best available evidence at the time went the other way. And the behaviour of major players who were in a position to know supports that conclusion.

But it’s irrelevant and off-topic.

Prove you wrong about what exactly? I don’t need to prove anything except that you took a position that went against best available evidence at the time and now you’re giving people a hard time.

There’s nothing better than the US and European intel services-as good or bad as they are. we simply don’t have any better than that known to man. It’s essentially as good as it gets, yet they were wrong.

There was no evidence?

Of course there wasn’t. It was speculative and virtually identical tom the sort of speculative evidence we have now on AGW.

You can’t be selective on risk and risk mitigation.

Of course I want to make a buck. In fact I hope this stock can end up at 80 bucks a share and possibly 160 bucks a share if they get the American centrifuge project up and running.

But, you freaking moron, the fact that buying nuclear service stocks (not uranium) and having a belief that it really is the answer are not mutually exclusive. In fact it’s reinforcing.

Lastly who am I going to influence, you pathetic dill?

You really have venom running through your veins.