But Jardine K. Jardine the butt.

In defence of David G far be it from you to deny the undeniable Fact that burning of climate change denialists presents an exciting and promising renewable energy source.

Such renewable burnings may not only provide unforgettable moral reminders to burnees, but crowd pleasings to climate change believers like your good self everywhere.

Strapped to windmills. Tied to solar scorchers.

Is not that a better end for thee?

Can-not your rather repugnant ego miss?

Yours

Edward I "Longballs" Plantagenet

Instead of standing for WikiLeaks in the recent election, the author should have stood for the Greens, as they are the party that is anti-development, anti-population, amoral, and science and economics illiterate.

Come on Plantagenet, we would do much better burning all the warmest academics.

After the billions of taxpayer funds poured into them, they will have much more fat to burn.

Not only that, reducing the number of useless academics by about half should solve all our budgetary problems for a decade or two. Talk about win win!

Pete, burning Jardine would result in a huge fireball as the mainly methane gas within him explodes.

No, burning denialists will never do. There's enough hot air in the world already!

Put them on islands that are disappearing under the waves should bring them to their senses!

What can I say. The few days. on two different forums, I have been accused of expressing autism and now thinking like a primitive.

Oh well, I will still express my opinion as part of my support for liberalism (free speech always).

Abusing about my intellect, harmless as it is, will not persuade me that all is okay with human activity in recent decades.

I think most Westerners agree that humans are the major cause, and that some regulation is needed. Just look at the polls around the world.

My view appears in line with the majority, and I have faith in democracy.

Better to do something, rather than nothing. Heaven the planet if we just did nothing.

There appears to be gross confusion in the AGW skeptic debate brought about by generalization, especially by associating warming with CO2.

In brief, AGW may be occurring but it might not be caused by CO2.
Many people agree with warming or possible warming however many of those same people do not agree the cause is due to CO2.
Labelling someone a climate skeptic is virtually indicating the skeptic does not believe there can be rain one day and sun the next.

Surely it would be better to have a label of "CO2 skeptic" and another separate label of "AGW-warming skeptic".

In any case, from my point of view there is evidence that areas of ocean are warming in various locations sometimes, and apparent moisture laden warmth in those areas can sometimes be seen linked to intense storms. For example cloud can be seen streaming up from waters of the Gulf of Mexico dead zone area into where a tornado is forming, with there is dense algae plant matter with no sign of increased CO2.

I think AGW should be debated without the mindset about CO2