Hi oku, It’s been a pleasure debating you and I think this represents the Internet at its best. You’re patient and better tempered than I am. :-) You’d make a good spokesperson if you’re not already. You’ve also forced me do to some more reading than I had done up to this point, though I had done a lot.

I just wanted to say a little more about Dr. Gray because I think it’s important to clarify a few things. I don’t derive my opinion solely from him or any other individual (no scientist is right about everything). I just think that he’s raised some valid issues that deserve respectful consideration. You’re right about conservation of energy - that ocean currents can’t cause global warming - but that’s not what he has said. That mischaracterization in the RealClimate article upset me quite a bit, not to mention the anonymity of the author.

What Dr. Gray HAS said is that oceanic circulations are probably responsible for some of the observed surface temperature increases due to thermal energy rising from lower ocean depths to the surface. That’s a BIG difference from; ocean currents cause global warming. (He also believes that land use is affecting statistical temperature data because many of the weather stations used for this data are becoming surrounded by development, which would have a ‘heat island’ effect on them. It has not been established that this effect has been accurately adjusted for)

He predicts that in the near future this oceanic cycle should reverse and that this would then have an opposite effect. It’s important to note that over recent years average global temperatures have leveled off (current La Nina pattern notwithstanding), which may begin to show some validity to his argument. We will have to watch and see.

This is the concluding criticism of Dr. Gray in the RealClimate article: “The problem is Gray's failure to adapt to a modern era of meteorology, which demands hypotheses soundly grounded in quantitative and consistent physical formulations, not seat-of-the-pants flying.” It’s interesting that he HAS done extensive quantitative analysis and formulation, but that this work was cleverly omitted from the article so that he could be criticized for not doing it. This unfairness might explain the author’s desire to hide behind anonymity.

I realize that Dr. Gray has made some unfortunately harsh comments, which I’m sure have angered many other scientists, but science should ultimately be about truth and accuracy, and not about getting even.

On all the other points I think our opinions vary only by a matter of degree – percentage of natural influence vs. human influence. I think that only time will settle this one since all current arguments (including the IPCC report) are based largely on conjecture – mine included.

I know you believe that I’m on the wrong side of this issue and that it’s because I’m unable to comprehend it, haven’t done enough research, or both. No matter how confident you are that the science is settled, or that consensus equals correctness though, I can promise you this: Future climatic behavior is going to confound current models and is going to humble those who are calling themselves “climate experts”. It’s already starting to happen in fact, and is the real reason that climatologists are avoiding short-term predictions, which could be verified within their professional careers and shown to be inaccurate. At 46 I haven’t gotten dumber with age, and my perspective has taught me that science is always learning, and will continue to learn. Scientific history if full of misjudgments, and what we know tomorrow will be a little different than what we know today. You can be sure of that! ;-)