Curmudgeon, I am glad to see that at least we seem to agree that global warming is happening but I think you may need to take Runner and his mates aside and explain that to them. Be gentle with him.

Runner, I am still waiting for your reply to my questions about real science and scientists. I'm also not too sure about the scientists to whom you are referring in your last post. Please enlighten us.

David

Seriously VK3AUU, do you really think anyone denies the world has warmed?

The term "denial" refers to people who "deny" that mankind is contributing to the warming via fossil fuels and producing CO2.

The whole premise of CPRS/ETS taxation systems is to reduce CO2, which is why our government has adopted the mantra "stop carbon pollution" as if the air is full of carbon, or soot - CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant.

There's no "proof" that CO2 is causing or contributing to additional climate change.

That's what skeptics have doubts about ..

For goodness sake pay attention, that has been said on OLO on every AGW topic for years, that yes the climate changes but no we're not convinced it's CO2.

We may be contributing to climate change by clearing land and various other means, but that's not what the IPCC and the Carbon taxes are about, they are about changing the climate by reducing CO2, they have even set a 2 degree C limit if you can believe that!

Of course the climate changes, no one "denies" that, except in dishonest AGW propaganda which clearly some people swallow without thinking how stupid it is - really, the climate not change, have you been outside in the last 20 years?

RPG. When I have the time, I could go back through the past 12 months of posts on OLO and find a score of people who deny that global warming is happening. Our friend Runner is just one of them. I suggest that you are the one who needs to pay attention. Sorry.

David

vk3auu .. thanks I look forward to seeing what you come up with

the climate not changing, how quaint

Absolute certainty may be lacking within honest science but within dishonest denialism the certainty that the science is wrong verges on religious faith. The pronouncements of it's high priests are never to be questioned even - especially - when they contradict each other as they do.

Climate change is as sound as any physics based science and the primary mode of attacking it isn't the presentation of credible alternative science but in denigrating it's practitioners. To dismiss and ignore the considered opinions of the scientists who professionally study science in favour of the unfounded belief that what people do can't change the climate is dangerously irresponsible.

When Monckton was out here he was flamed by all and sundry, Bob Carter is continuously flamed as is anyone skeptical - you play the man constantly.

"The pronouncements of it's high priests etc etc" and of course the high priests of AGW, e.g. Al Gore - how many climate scientists have come out against Al? So you all believe what he says, the High Priest of Warming?

How about some facts, who contradicts, as if IPCC doesn't make errors eh, but those errors are OK aren't they, allowable within the faith! Why is that?

I don't have any high priests of skepticism, I'm on my own, so your theory that there are leaders and followers is defunct as well - I know you all WANT TO BELIEVE that skeptics are as organised as warmists, but they simply are not. You apply your own values to skeptics and imagine they are just an opposite to you, with a belief system,we are not.

"Climate change is as sound as any physics based science" when did climate change become a science, Freudian slip I believe?

You twist things as we keep accusing warmists of, To dismiss and ignore the considered opinions of the scientists who professionally study science in favour of the unfounded belief that what people do can't change the climate is dangerously irresponsible." No we don't say that man does not contribute to climate change, we say, show us the evidence it is CO2.

You are trying to change the ground rules, typically of a warmist, and doing that is undermining your case as you all flail around trying to find a way for your environmental activism to be supported by your warmist beliefs.

Skeptics quesion whether CO2 is responsible for additional warming, and how much of it? How much is natural, how much has an unknown cause?

Climate Science knows everything there is to know about climate doesn't it, there are no unknowns, Ken are there?

Do you follow the activist line that, well, even if CO2 is not responsible, it would be good to clean up our act?