Well put Ken. Nil illegitimus carborundum.

Rpg, why would it not be good for us to clean up our act, sooner rather than later when it may have aready hit the fan? What is wrong with erring on the side of caution?

David

vk3auu, Visne parten mei capere? Comminus agamus!

There is nothing wrong with cleaning up our act, very admirable and I'm all for it - but that's not what this is about is it?

When the going gets tough on proving CO2 is causing additional temperature rises to the natural climate change and warming, you all grope for this handle.

It's like the accusation that all skeptics must be right wing pollution mad corporate paid fanatics, more propaganda fromt he AGW camp, and that's why you guys have a problem with your "message", it's all about attacking the man and not the ball.

Like Ken accusing us of having "heros", we don't you do, Al Gore, Hansen, Prince Charles, Pres Obama, etc.

The subject at hand is AGW .. not environmental activism. If you want to admit that the whole AGW belief is just a vehicle for environmentalism, it would be a good start, we could all do with some honesty in this debate couldn't we?

Erring on the side of caution is admitting you have no confidence in your position of CO2 induced heating, and that you are using it as a lever to support your eco aspirations.

Try to stay focused, when you say denier, it is your sides derogatory term for skeptics of man made contributions to global warming.

Found anyone yet who denies the climate changes?

rpg, I think you’ve stirred up some interesting psychology here. You make a clear case for disconnecting climate change from AGW.

The problem for David and Ken is two fold. It was the AGW’ers who started the shift from AGW to human induced climate change to just climate change, mostly because the case for carbon induced changes has weakened significantly. Secondly, climate change is a widely accepted concept, so they now find themselves “violently agreeing” with half of what you say. The other half is devoted to back tracking, trying to retrofit carbon causation with that which seems acceptable.

I think the rage against skeptics is a diversion and should be accepted as part of their trauma. We have to ask why focus on skeptics when Phil Jones himself has acknowledged, under oath, that what warming has so far been “measured’ is within norms? This is precisely what skeptical scientists have been telling us.

By ignoring what has been said by Phil Jones and pointing the finger at skeptics, we are seeing a level of denial of astonishingly hypocritical proportions.

I think it’s time Ken/David challenged the “amended” Phil Jones gospel before launching another foray at skeptics.

To quote the classic Monty Python skit, “this is an EX-PARROT”

>> The problem for David and Ken is two fold. It was the AGW’ers who started the shift from AGW to human induced climate change to just climate change, mostly because the case for carbon induced changes has weakened significantly. <<

Spindoc is not a liar, nor is he that stupid ... he just deliberately disorts and spins.

Check out the Bush Administration's tactics on "climate change" in a memo by Frank Lundtz

About 3 mins 40 seconds in.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=frol02s490q72&continuous=1

Spindoc typically twists and 'doctors' the facts - it was the Bush Administration who took on the policy advice: "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change"

Science good enough to convince National Academies of Sciences isn't enough to convince amateur experts therefore it ain't happening? Like some pre-BC philosopher, famed for his persuasiveness, got told as he was dragged away - we aren't going to listen. Whilst proof of all the key components of the whole are there - the absobtion and emission characteristics of gases through the various crucial climate processes to the conclusion that ongoing warming can and should be attributed to human emissions - those that refuse to listen will keep insisting there is no proof and no conclusions can be made. And they'll dismiss even the proof of those key components. For example Plimer's nonsensical claim that atmospheric CO2 is rising because of undersea volcanoes gained wide acceptance from those who will believe smoke stacks and exhaust pipes aren't responsible for CO2 rise just to have another argument to make. Didn't matter that it's obvious nonsense.

The hottest decade on record continues to be described as a period of cooling by those who are happy to believe - without proof - the old orthodoxy that people can't change the climate. That not one, but all indicators of global warming are showing a warming trend is passed over in an ongoing effort to distract, cause doubt and promote delay. And there is no real contender for alternative "natural" climate change; denialists can't even agree and don't care. Climate science denialism doesn't require any sceptical scientific appraisal of evidence to conclude it's all natural - proposing anything except human induced cause is good enough.

It's disturbing that so many people buy into the idea that thousands of scientists and scientific papers are all wrong but clowns like Monckton and mining company directors like Plimer are right - but it's far more disturbing that political leaders with full access to the scientific advice available choose to ignore it for the sake of the votes of the biased and misinformed. Worse that they actively encourage public misinformation just to keep that voter base on side.

Ken, I can't remember who it was that said, the easiest & quickest way to convince a "National Academy" of anything is to wrap a 100 dollar bill around the finger doing the pointing.

Who ever it was must have spent some time around climate "scientists". It seems to work pretty well at the CSIRO these days too, going by their recent rubbish, & the BOM.

Haven't these blokes been looking at what is happening in the UK, or do their masters still live in hope?

Come to think of it, their masters have proven themselves pretty dumb, recently.