examinator "What is it you are saying I'm confused (obvious opening here, but I'll resist) are you saying you believe climate change is happening but not the Anthropomorphic part?"

That's exactly what I'm saying, when the skepticism (US spelling) relates to CO2, which is the cause of all the concern, taxes, the IPCC, all the funding for "science related to AGW", Senator Wong and PM Rudds sneering at the public who disagree - there may be many reasons for man's contribution to warming of the earth (which would continue even if we did not exist, do you agree?)

My beef is with the lunatics and idiots who continue to berate us with bullsyte about reducing CO2 emissions or the world will end, extreme, well yes - read Andy Glikson's article today, more hysterical rubbish and like his paper, most eco CO2 warmies are just as shrill and doom forecasting.

Mind you this sort of article that Andy produces does so much good for the skeptics (US Spelling) cause by just being so overblown about CO2, people just turn off as it's obvious he's hysterical and thus no longer relevant.

"BTW there is a difference between a sceptic (Aussie spelling) and a denier." Yes, I'm sure people who agree with you are good skeptics (US Spelling) and people who disagree are DENIERS! whoop whoop whoop, alarm alarm alarm, dive dive dive .. I ridicule you and those who try to add further insult to the "DENIER!" insult, as you deserve it.

So learn some people skills and put aside the need to insult people who disagree, you'll probably get further in life - lose the anger too, you are starting to get really shrill, see above.

I'm amazed that some people can be so thin-skinned about being called a "denier" when all manner of insults are hurled against those with the alternate view.

From what I can see the non-AGW cheerleaders are broken up into -

1. Those that don't believe the climate is changing at all
2. Those who believe it's actually getting colder
3. Those who believe it's changing for no apparent reason but definetely exclude man-made factors.
4. Those who believe it's changing due to sunspots or other external sources
5. Those who accept it's partly due to man-made factors but it's unstoppable so why bother even trying

Within those groups are -
1. Those who think it's misguided and/or corrupt scientists trying to get grants
2. Those who think it's a scam based on making money from trading carbon credits
3. Those who think it's part of a devious communist plot for world domination

I think skeptic/sceptic is too loose a term for any of these groups. I think a skeptic/sceptic is much like an agnostic while a denier is more like a full-blown atheist.

In most cases, the cap certainly fits. Why not wear it with pride and not care what anybody else thinks?

Agreed rache - so to even things up and show how thick skinned AGW believers are, why not call yourselves Warmophiles, like paedophiles, but instead of bothering children you bother temperature data or such .. what do you think? Warmophillics? (like necrophilics,but not?)

So apart from AGW believers, and warmies - what are these names you are being called? Anything like being likened to a holocaust denier ..hmmm?

The fact you think it's OK to insult people you disagree with, says it all and you have no moral high ground left if you resort to name calling immediately, then shrug it off as umimportant.

next ..

Barnaby isn't and was never the village idiot. He is far too smart and conniving for that. He was, and apparently continues to play the part of court jester. He has always talked to us like a cartoonist, distorting reality to an almost comic degree to make his point. We all knew what he said was absurd on the surface, but the absurdity just served to focus on the to resonant string he was plucking in his support base. Its absurdity made sure it was reported by the media. Its purpose was to ensure they remembered him when they voted at the next election.

It all worked very well when he was a lone wolf. But he ain't a lone wolf now, he is shadow finance minister. Voters do not appreciate the court jester making absurd suggestions about their tax dollars. And in particular an accountant deliberately making basic accounting mistakes on how to calculate Australia's debt isn't funny. In fact it is down right frightening.

Barnaby either has to adjust and ditch the persona got him to where is now how, or he has to get off the front bench. While he is on the front bench the entire country is listening to what he says, not just his supporter base. His "in jokes" might appeal to the support base, but to the rest of us who don't recognise them for what they are they look more like ramblings from the village idiot. And this idiot is angling to control what happens with our tax dollars.

BARNABY'S CHOICE

Upon the debt and slavery,
Incurred by our Government,
We thought it was alright,
Since the world,
Had a similar plight.

But more devious intent,
Twas hidden by the media,
We dare not malign,
Of corporate collusion,
By malicious design,

Was it not prostitution
That made it all so sublime?
The rhyme would be fine
Had greed prospered.

Then,stark reality strikes a blow,
Our minds think,
This can't be so!
A life's fortune lost
In a super annual toss.

But now we all,
Are on the cusp
Of a new seduction,
No production,no fun,no puns?
Just derivative ponzy scams
Of Carbon trading,the cost.

And self falgellating guilt,
Born out of fear,
And the yearn to please,
Of the world's Green police,
Dressed up as corporate dills,
Who fail to see our needs.

Now war is the horizon's solution,
To replace visions of man's pollution.

Power and pounds remain primary pairs,
And we cowered by the Hollywood cast,
Are nurtured by the fear,
Of being close to last.
by Arjay.
Well,it could actually be good if I had the time.

Amicus,

I was doing the name calling? I only mentioned the word "denier". You added the "holocaust" bit and then attached the terms paedophilia and necrophilia for those you may not agree with.

Would "disagree-er" sit more comfortably perhaps?

If the official world view is that AGW exists (as has been agreed by all the world governments) it becomes the status quo - thus everybody who opposes it is in denial of it as fact. A bit like the hole in the ozone layer - same science, similar remedy but nowhere near the same amount of hostile argument.

If the official situation reverses then so does everybody's relative viewpoint.
The problem is that there are so many contrary opinions. It's either AGW or "anything-but".

At least I'm prepared to admit that I don't know what the truth is and there's not much I can do about it anyway.

Whatever happens, it will be entirely our own fault either way so you could call be a denier as well - if it helps.