Paradox,

There were thousands of posts on the website.... and a multi-year rather extensive scientific discussion.

Thousands of posts on, "the website" that are no longer available do not help me much. I have looked for science backing what you are saying and not found it. That is why I am asking you to be clear rather than just giving sweeping generalisations with no evidence to back them. If can see the arguments set out clearly along with evidence, I can then make a judgement as to which side is right. At the moment the only side that seems to provide evidence is the scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is a real and serious issue.

You can go on complaining about thousands of posts being removed or the website taken down if you like. The alternative is to grow up and actually provide the evidence for what you are saying. I and others are more than happy to look at evidence and evaluate it. Few are going to take your arguments seriously without the evidence.

You're wrong and erasing valid conversations doesn't make you right.

If I had the skills to hack into a system and erase thousands of valid conversations, I would be using those skills for something a lot more productive. As it is my knowledge of hacking is nowhere near extensive enough for that. My computers contribute to the scientific work of this project and have nothing to do with any alleged removal of your material.

Whether or not THC crashes, I agree that the way things are going there will be significant sea level rise, the scenario that most climate scientists predicts that as well so at least there is something we can agree on even if not on the mechanisms driving it. Stocks are pretty much irrelevant to me. £500 pounds in a community owned wind farm is not going to make a significant difference to my income one way or the other if affected by climate changes in any direction.

Do your models concur with the current state of events?

With regards to your question, I would say on the whole yes. Some of the models have specifically looked at floods and droughts in various areas of the world and have come up with figures of how much more likely these events are to occur than had CO2 remained at pre-industrial levels.

I have to trust the scientists on this as I don't have access to the code of the computer programs and even if I did, doubt if I could make significant sense of around one million lines of Fortran. As you are probably aware the tasks run via this site are looked at by statistical programmes to see the variations across slightly different starting parameters and while they can give probabilities of an event being caused by an increase in CO2 emissions, they are never going to be able to say that X is caused by Y with certainty and this has never been claimed by the scientists.

Regards,

Dave

Just as an aside, if our 'WEATHER' models result in people being evacuated from somewhere relatively safe to a major impact zone, what does that say for models predicting the future decades and/or hundreds or thousands of years out? Shouldn't we maybe get two or three days down without screwing over millions of people with a bogus prediction?

Weather models are a lot more accurate than they were even five years ago. In any case, the work done by CPDN is about climate prediction rather than weather.

A recent post by Paradox has been hidden on the grounds of (mildly but unnecessarily) obscene language.

If you've got something to say, Paradox, then please just say it. People can then respond if they think the game is worth the candle.

A few minutes ago my comment about this place being a ghost town was erased and now my response to 'Ed' appears yet his post I responded to is gone. Is there a glitch in the system? Did I just respond to 'phantom' Ed? Really?

Paradox

Both those posts are visible on my screen: no glitch that I can see.

Not seeing the post from Ed. here but post about this place being a ghost town has been visible to me for about 6 hours.