Actually just posting platitudes and ignoring repeated requests to get any researcher to support your cherry picks demonstrate who is not even trying.
I made the point that disagreeing with AGW does mean an assertion that a conspiracy exists.
It might mean…disagreeing with AGW.
There is broad agreement among the scientific community that the earth is warming faster than it would were it not for human contribution to greenhouse gases. One can disagree with that conclusion, and criticize the reasons for it, without asserting that a conspiracy is involved.
There is broad agreement among the scientific community that scientific principles, and not factors such as psychology or positive feedback loops account for the broad agreement. One can disagree with that without advancing the notion that it is a conspiracy.
There is broad agreement among the scientific community that the net effects of AGW might be negative. One can disagree with that without advancing the notion that there is a conspiracy to paint the effects as negative.
When you charge conspiracy, as you frequently do, you set up a silly strawman that paints those who disagree as nutcases in the same genre as, say, a World Trade Tower conspiracy advocate.
I personally think you’d be better off with less use of the terms “experts” and “conspiracy” and simply argue the points. It’s obvious you think anyone who agrees with the general themes of AGW is an expert, and anyone who disagrees is a conspiracy theorist. But these are rhetorical devices, and not of themselves persuasive, in my view.
That is nice, but the problem remains that you are ignoring about the claim made about the “high priests” that he is ignoring because they do not support their cherry pics he is doing.
The recommended thing to do was to just say that FX was wrong, not to continue to avoid dealing with what he claimed. The point stands, if you are not capable of identifying a clear case of a conspiracy theorist, one has to then doubt that you are paying good attention to more serious items.
On the prediction front, I recommend Kerry Emanuel’s booklet entitled “What We Know About Climate Change.” In chapter 5, “Consequences,” he runs through the typical list of potentially adverse effects (and some potentially positive effects). His general theme is that these consequences might turn out to be bad but that we really just don’t know. The summary sentence at the end of the chapter is:
“We know as little about the consequences of our actions as Phaeton did when he took the reins of his father’s chariot.”
This is an honest message for Alarmists to give Deniers. “We are sounding an alarm because we are worried that not only is AGW a correct paradigm; we are worried the consequences might be net negative. But we don’t have much confidence that the results will be catastrophic–or even net negative, because we just are not good at predicting outcomes.”
What happens when you predict Doom with a greater certainty than is warranted is that your message is diluted when it does not occur. Worse, you precipitate action taken out of panic and distortion. For example, much of the environmentalist community is ferociously opposed to nuclear energy. The prediction of Doom from nuclear energy prevents any measured evaluation of the net positive or negative. As a consequence (much to the chagrin of Dr Emanuel and others), nuclear energy’s future is dead even though it might be the best anti-ACC weapon in the AGW arsenal.
We need to be careful over-stating what we know and what we do not know, and even more careful in our predictions.
And Chief Pedant to say more about how FX is not what you think, we need to check the pit for that.
I mean, let’s see is there is any reaction from your conspiracy radar, do you agree with FX on the false climategate scandal?
Ah, hope springs eternal. That the alarmists mentality allows for any honesty at all.
If they were honest, they wouldn’t be alarmists!
Catch 22
I know a lot of people just ignore you, which is understandable, you won’t engage. You don’t seem to even understand what people say to you. The constant same response you bring ias boring, and un-educating in the extreme. It’s like people in a topic are discussing a movie, and rather than respond to anything, in your own words and thought, you constantly post the same thing over and over, insisting people read books and watch reviews by film critics, and you insult anyone who won’t, and anyone who disagrees with YOU, you claim they can’t go find a movie critic to support their view of the movie.
And then you post some more links to blogs and copy and paste walls of text, and never respond to anything anyone else posts, except to claim it is wrong. And they are guilty of something, and you just don’t get it.
I don’t think you CAN get it, which is why you are such a soft target, and I have said while I find your lack of skills and knowledge appalling, I tend to agree with some of your goals, which are protecting the world, and using clean renewable power, rather than dirty fossil fuels.
So I don’t get angry or frustrated anymore. I think of you as a child that can grow, and bloom, and become a real force in the war. But you have to start engaging.
respond to what people type, not what is in your head.
Most of the ones I respect (and have a lot of respect from others) do not ignore me, that tells me and others a lot. The important thing is that even scientists have told me that I do get what is science, you do not.
Meh, as I pointed ans showed before I can go for many posts with no cites from Skeptical science, and that is because what I told you before is the truth, if this was pseudoscience I would run out of material and support, in reality there is an ocean 
of people that support what I report, you are reduced to cherry picks and you will have to face the fact that you can not find a cite from the experts of the sites you cherry pick that supports your tactic.
That is because you are wrong, and it is not my problem that you do not get it, I post for my education and for others that do not deserve to be misled by you being wrong.
Eh, he don’t know me very well, does he folks?
What it is clear to me is that you can not picture that a bumpkin that came from a third world country and with English as a second language has the support of scientists (and even from the SDMB) and people that me and many others respect also tell me so, so in reality it is you who needs to learn a lot as many that do count IMHO are the ones that are ignoring you.
This only shows to me that you are not aware that what you assign to others are in reality qualities that you have.
You need to realize that since one should not rely on anyone on the internet then it follows that examples and experts should be pointed out, as I have found time and time again, the refusal or acceptance to deal with the advice of the experts exposes who relies on conspiracies and who really appreciates science.
I have a personal policy here to speak for myself, and defend my positions. I not try to characterize the positions of others, unless it is a post to which I am directly replying.
I was just asking you a question, which is whether or not you think it is sufficient to paint someone into a Conspiracist box and then, having put them in that box, decide if a comment has substance or not based on the label you have applied to them and not based on the content of the comment.
So, for example, if someone is in your “expert” box, you seem to feel a position they take must be sound. If someone is in a “creationist” box, a position they take (on AGW) is less likely to be sound. (At least, I think I recall you slapping that label around in AGW threads as if it has to do with the price of rice in China) If someone is a Denier, or a Conspiracist, a given point is also suspect for you.
I am suggesting that the actual point made be given weight, with less attention to which box you think the author belongs in…
No it is not, hence the reason why one quotes form the experts that are accused of being the “high priests”. The point here is that I also did this, so your compliant here is really meaningless.
The question for you stands, do you agree that “climate gate” was a manufactured scandal and anyone following it now is just stuck in a conspiracy theory with no support?
Remember, what we have here someone insisting on continuing to discredit the scientists with a discredited idea. Anyone that has respect for accuracy and science should make a stand against those kind of positions, then we can discuss about other things with the agreement that some ideas from the contrarians are better to not even bother to defend indirectly.
An interestingly ironic statement coming from someone who has so frequently made claims that were shown to be wrong, and now refuses to discuss them.
In this instance, the claim that “not even one model works” is entirely specious and not even meaningful. What does “works” even mean? By what standard of accuracy in what metric, over what timeframe, over what kind of regional resolution? The reality is that modern coupled atmosphere-ocean circulation models are immensely valuable scientific tools across many metrics and many dimensions of scientific inquiry, and account for all of those named parameters and hundreds more, not one of which is the show-stopper you claim.
To wit:
you can’t predict natural variations
You can’t predict chaos, by definition. But climate chaos is internal, and can’t change the long-term energy balance and the long-term trend that climate models seek to predict.
There are also systematic natural variations like the ENSO, NAO, PDO, and others that have been successfully modeled, but again, these are internal variabilities and the interest is limited to regional and temporal factors.
volcanoes,
We can’t predict volcanoes? Say it ain’t so! 
But, absent some catastrophic event that ends all life on earth, the effect of volcanoes when they occur on above-average scales is to induce temporary short-term cooling (typically on no more than a seasonal scale) without affecting the long-term temperature trajectory.
*the solar cycle, *
I would think that anything with the name “cycle” in it would be predictable, by definition! Obviously the ~0.1% up and down variations with the 11-year cycle are irrelevant to climate. Equally obviously, as already discussed, claiming solar variability as a significant factor in the post-industrial era or any timeframe in which we discuss AGW is one of the many claims in which you were spectacularly wrong and shown to be so.
*the effects of clouds, *
is an area of some uncertainty, although the forcings are both positive and negative depending on cloud altitude. It’s to be noted the both theory and observation – including empirical data from the paleoclimate about the climate system’s response to GHG forcings – rules out any of the kinds of systematic impacts that have sometimes been claimed; in short, the climate responds to increasing concentrations of GHGs pretty much in conformance with the expected radiative transfer functions. There are no “magic” limiting thresholds; indeed, as Hans Oeschger was the first to demonstrate, the reality is the opposite, and most common discontinunities are climatic tipping points where cumulative feedbacks lead to an accelerated rate of change.
*snow *
Yep, there’s gonna be snow.
or even water vapor.
Climate models quite happily incorporate the Clausius-Clapeyron relation reflecting the feedback of increasing water vapor as temperature increases, another area in which you made claims that were shown to be spectacularly wrong.
pollution
Why would it be hard to predict something that we can measure and relate to human activities?
albedo feedback
…is mostly directly tied to rising temperature and a major factor in Arctic amplification, and no less predictable than the systematically declining Arctic ice cover.
ocean circulation patterns
See “natural variability” above.
wind
See “natural variability” above.
what happened with the ozone
What happened with it? The most significant component by far is tropospheric ozone, and its formation is directly related to the emissions of precursor compounds – CH4, CO, nitrogen oxides, and other anthropogenic emissions that can be measured and predicted. The uncertainties around tropospheric ozone are no more than those around CO2, and the forcing magnitude is much smaller.
I have no idea what “climategate” is. Was that the hoopla about some private emails or something? I’m really sorry…I just don’t pay much attention to AGW, period. I’m interested in why we behave the way we do, but not very interested in AGW itself…
I can assure you, nothing of consequence will come of it in terms of real change in behaviour. I am very confident in that prediction. Like Y2K, a few groups/countries will go nuts. Others will do nothing. Lots and lots of Very Important Conferences, National Goals, Resolutions and the like. Nothing will come of them when push comes to shove. For one thing, even Alarmists don’t have a clear path to what we should do (consider the nuclear debate, e.g.). As I’ve said before, the tragedy of the commons principle will ensure that nothing requiring actual sacrifice by an individual for the common good will get very far unless there is a series of very proximate and very damaging events that are in the warming family (i.e., a polar vortex meander linked to AGW after the fact and causing us to freeze our butts off won’t be a persuasive AGW “prediction”).
For me to weigh in on AGW itself would require me to understand models that contain hundreds of thousands of lines of code and multiple tunable parameters, along with how we actually quantify events such as total global temperature. All of that is way beyond my inclination and possible beyond my ability.
Sorry again.
So, meaningless contributions then.
How about a few hundred bucks? You up for it?
You’ll note that you actually started with the year 2001. That your lower slider said 2000 is just caused by the granularity of the slider. Look at the x-axis.
Ah, well you fix that then! 
jkjk I would love very very much to be able to wager, but sadly it’s looking more and more like I won’t be around to see the results. Much less to meet you and settle up. My apologies.
It’s not that simple at all, but you are obviously young, and unlike us old geezers, don’t actually know what was happening then. And no amount of telling, or even showing ya will help. Air pollution was the real problem then, and yes, most scientists thought that after the haze blocking out the sunlight was fixed, and if the volcanoes calmed down, the atmosphere cleared up, and if we kept cutting down the forests, and burning fuels, it would warm the planet, not cool it. Most still do actually. It’s physics.
Actually that is almost exactly as I picture you, which is why I am kind and gentle with you. It’s clear you don’t understand enough to engage in a discussion, your method is to bury others with paperwork, and to act superior in all ways, so I understand.
It’s safe to assume if I made any claim, any claim at all, and you could “show it was wrong”, we would see this repeated ad nauseam, maybe even an entire topic or two about how FX was wrong.
Now, I got to go see what the bumpkins and experts have been up to in the cooling topic.
No, if you actually accepted the facts you would already had acknowledged that deniers are using what the popular press did regarding the “ice age coming” and use it now to claim that the current “pause” was never expected.
And you are wrong still, I’m not that young, what happens is that you are not even aware that when one is learning another language the grammar can make one sound young.
Avoidance of the point that you are not supported by the experts and researches noted.
Besides **wolfpup **I’m pointing that out also, and ad nauseam too, so in reality we do have plenty of evidence for others to see that you are even wrong on your assumption of superiority. The warning here is that, as you are not aware, a few of the ones that support you on the pit are also on the record of feeling superior over other races.
And still the evidence is clear, and most other posters with more experience agree, it has not cooled, your cherry picks do, but as that is not the big picture, the end result is that you end up misleading yourself. And you still refuse to admit that the scientists from the organizations you cherry pick are not agreeing with you; instead of being scientists you **still **insist they are “deceptive in the extreme” and “the entrenched position of many” that do not follow science. It is a clear sign of just falling for a conspiracy theory.
In these types of discussions, there are very few claims which are flat out wrong, although septimus has provided a couple.
What is far more common are claims which are either (1) correct; (2) too vague or poorly defined to be right or wrong; or (3) denotatively correct but connotatively wrong.
All species affect their environment.
I’m not interested in dissecting the reasons for your frequent and often flagrant scientific errors or starting a topic about it, only in pointing out when they occur that they are errors, to set the record straight in the context of a factual discussion. And have done so many times; there are about a dozen instances mentioned here.
It seems to be your position that you’ve never been wrong, and never had it pointed out to you. I guess that’s why they call it “denialism”.
IMNSHO, if you are wrong about something scientific, it’s just science at work. If the evidence is overwhelming for something, and you stick to your error, it’s then a mistake.
The UV portion of the sun’s output varies by a huge amount. This is new knowledge, gained recently. The effect this has on our atmosphere and surface and oceans is unknown. You are wrong, or rather your sources are. But this happens all the time. It’s the refusal to move forward, integrate new knowledge, and stick to your guns when you are wrong, that’s the real scientific mistake.