I see that my point (#10) is more or less repeated by other commentators (eg #53 and #58).
Gavin: you reply to #53: “Why should anyone continue to discuss with you?”
If you really want to communicate, then you better find a way of communicating. If on the other hand you don’t want to communicate, there is little point in replying to comments, really.
In fact you remind me of those English-speaking tourists arriving back home in frustration, convinced that the locals they visited are brainless idiots, after having shouted, yelled, huffed and puffed to make themselves understood…by people that simply do not speak English.
If you or Mr Weart want to speak to engineers, or anybody else, then you both better speak in a way that engineers can understand. And if they don’t appear to have understood, you cannot simply jump to saying “why are you people so slow to understand?”…the only sensible option is to see where the miscommunication is (yes, it can be with you too), and to work to fix that.
I have provided a few suggestions already.
People do have various degrees of skepticism in the nature and dangers of anthropogenic global warming. How difficult is it to recognize that? If you instead poo-poo their thoughts whenever expressed, you will win nobody’s mind. Fine by me, but then what’s a blog for?
Omnologos - Comments 
Posted by: Maurizio Morabito | April 25, 2008 at 11:05 PM
It would be interesting if “Scientist” would come up with ways to falsify the climate models, since as we know the people at RealClimate won’t. The “weather vs. climate” picture confirms my point: as long as there is _any amount_ of “warming”, the climate models will be considered _right_ (in the sense of “not false”).
One can imagine a period of 20 years of cooling dismissed out of hand as “aerosols” or “soot” or whatever else: with the climate models still “right”, no matter what.
On the other hand when, say, James Hansen talks about “tipping points” he is not referring to changes that will be visible only after 10 or more years of statistics: rather, to spectacular modifications of the world as we experience it. Am I mistaken on this point?
So please, if you can, try to be explicit about what observations would make you change your mind.
As I mention in my Moon Hoax blog, the difference between a dogmatic and a honest debater is that the former invariably never ever reveals what evidence would convince them to change their mind.
http://omnologos.wordpress.com/2008/04/21/phil-plaits-moon-hoax-london-speech-report/