In reply to johnj:
> (In reply to Monk)
>
> So now I have to justify my question at the stage of questioning for you to concede I have a very good question, does your question in itself not do that?
What I am saying is that your question has to be reasonable and relevant for it to challenge the current models. I am not an expert in climate, but I do know for example that a previous poster asked about chaos theory etc. There was a very simple answer that the current models already use this. Therefore, the question was valid, but didn't challenge the status quo.
The flipside to this is that if I ask "but what about the effect of giant avacodos falling from the moon, that must surely mean warming is bunkum!", then I am entitled to ask, but scientists are equally entitled to dismiss it as a daft question.
However, if I have been doing my research, studied all the current information in learned journals, and noticed that perhaps there is a hitherto unnoticed pattern in el ninos and ocean currents that may just account for a 0.1 degree C annual increase in global temperatures, but is only a temporary anomaly, then I am perfectly entitled to discuss this with scientists, perform the required research and publish it in a learned journal. This is how scientists ask questions of established theories.
There is a fairly big difference between these 3 scenarios. For your question to be relevant, you must be able to frame it so that it can be understood, and you must have some sort of basis behind it.
The man on the street is generally very ill equipped to understand the complexities of any branch of modern science.