Soren wrote on Nov 12^th, 2011 at 8:17pm:


Tendentious poppycock. That's what's called the advent of direct measurement. When you can measure the temperature directly, the error bars do drop off to almost nothing. Make sense?

I mean if you're taking readings of oxygen isotope ratios in ice layers instead of reading directly, that's going to introduce more error - right?

No 77 - the future - 4 question marks.

http://www.bom.gov.au/info/climate/change/gallery/77.shtml

And look! the caption say:
"The challenge remains to understand how the complex interplay of natural and anthropogenic driving forces will impact on the earth’s climate into and beyond the 21st century.


The challange remains to understand the complexity. Great Scot! The BoM guy musta been reading my posts, no? Bloody deniers, inflitreted even the BoM.

What dastardly thing did cro magnon man do to lock all that methane into permafrost?? It must have been a crime against Mother E.

Or if it was all just locked up there by the tooth fairy/Blue Beard, now homo sapiens is doing the dastrdly thing and releases it all. This is like Blue Beard's castle - do anything, look in all he rooms, but not  the 13th room, for that's where the permafrosted methane is locked up. You unlock that room and -
Booo!!!!

he was mocking the idea that the methane could have gotten there by anthropogenic influence. why? because it allows him to launch into a tirade about how, because the methane wasn't frozen into place there by human influences it must have been some natural process (possibly one he will claim that we don't know about at all or understand the mechanics of, which will likely be replied to by you explaining just how much we actually do know about it and just how much we actually do understand the mechanics of) and therefore climate is complex so the phantom factors must be, or at least, could be, causing AGW.

i've been observing this debate for some time. it's pretty repetitive. i don't understand the science behind AGW that well but i can spot some fishy arugments when i see them.  for the last few pages, the claim is made that the climate is complex and we don't understand it. whenever you, muso, do attempt to elaborate on the complexity of the climate, explain the various interactions of forces and pertinent physical processes that allow it to operate in the way that it does, soren will throw his hands up and tell everybody that there's always some "conveninent" fact in the way of his arguments that is perhaps too conveninent. there's always some exception here, some little point or facet of the climate lurking in the background that crops up whenever he thinks he's developed some new checkmate point. too conveninent. of course, most people would chalk this down to ignorance; he's trying to whittle away with a tiny knife at a toothpick, unaware that his vision is skewed and he's actually merely scraping the surface bark of a california redwood tree. essentially, the climate is complex but when its complexity is expounded upon and just how much we actually know about it is brought to light, it's a white wash.

maybe its a testament to your patience, but i don't see why you continue the way that you do. maybe you have some other ulterior motive besides attempting to convince him like honing your argumentative skills or speaking for the benefit of the audience and not so much your interlocutor. for said interlocutor, all contrary information will be rejected, rationalised, or met with hypothetical counterexamples. soren is sufficiently committed to his position that now paradoxically all exposure to contrary information only strengthens his position. he has formulated a very mentally effective stance that, if applied consistently to all appropriate questions, essentially makes reality and truth unknowable or beyond the reach of mere men.

i was never insinuating motives of the sort you are describing.. i meant motives more like what you just said you were doing this for, that you're enjoying the debate.

so really

how did the methane actually get there