Just another few thoughts on your response to my thoughts:

Here is a bit from RealClimate viz heat islands:

"This is simply false. UHI effects have been documented in city environments worldwide and show that as cities become increasingly urbanised, increasing energy use, reductions in surface water (and evaporation) and increased concrete etc. tend to lead to warmer conditions than in nearby more rural areas. This is uncontroversial. However, the actual claim of IPCC is that the effects of urban heat islands effects are likely small in the gridded temperature products (such as produced by GISS and Climate Research Unit (CRU)) because of efforts to correct for those biases. For instance, GISTEMP uses satellite-derived night light observations to classify stations as rural and urban and corrects the urban stations so that they match the trends from the rural stations before gridding the data. Other techniques (such as correcting for population growth) have also been used.

How much UHI contamination remains in the global mean temperatures has been tested in papers such as Parker (2005, 2006) which found there was no effective difference in global trends if one segregates the data between windy and calm days. This makes sense because UHI effects are stronger on calm days (where there is less mixing with the wider environment), and so if an increasing UHI effect was changing the trend, one would expect stronger trends on calm days and that is not seen. Another convincing argument is that the regional trends seen simply do not resemble patterns of urbanisation, with the largest trends in the sparsely populated higher latitudes."

That is, to put it simply, although there are effects noticeable from UHI's, with concrete et al, they are not significant parts of the equation. As I perhaps poorly stated, but what I had in mind nonetheless.

As for your "quasi-intellectual" comment, not sure what ox I gored here, but I DO read the articles, think, (I hope) cogently on them, and reflect, sometimes with passion, on the comments of others. Whether you understand 'intellectual' as one of the three commonly used meanings of the word, I don't give a damn. Quasi-intellectual means nothing. Pseudo-intellectual is the pejorative term used if you want to sling mud...and I made no claims about my expertise in climate science other than generally informed reading, which therefore is excludes me as pseudo-intellectual, that is, one posing as a scientist slash expert in this arena.

Running out of time, you say. For what? Your attempt at a joke? Apparently you are just fine with taking chances of an enormous nature with the future of our children, and just letting things run along without any interference, ala Bjorn Lomborg. I'm assuming you fly in his company. There is a funny, but sadly accurate, site in Denmark, I believe, that chronicles his poor science. Try some reading there. Or would that be too 'adult'? There is an excellent article, by the way, in RealClimate, that skewers a recent WSJ article that once again rears the ugly head of the interglacial cycles and how we're just in another one, ho hum. Or did you read that far. The declining ability of the oceans to absorb CO2 is troubling, but your comment about beverages is opaque. Were you trying to be funny again? Was there some, uh, quasi-science in your analysis of your beverage? Or your comment on the oceans? That higher temperatures = lowered ability to absorb? What exactly was your point? Sarcasm is ok if you actually elevate the discussion or redirect it. It is useless if you are just being nasty. Your 'definition' of climate "science", as you put it, is not only dumb, unclear, and antagonistic, but embarrassing. Did you have a point? Make it. Your beer analogy (with the oceans) is actually painful.