I accept the reality of the science, which is that there is no basis for the assertion of anthropogenic global warming.

The denialists are Al Gore, who says we do not need facts to justify an economically crippling trading sceme to solve a problem which does not exist, and the IPCC which sticks to an unscientific guess of "very likely" shown by genuine science to be untenable.

IPCC and Gore were awarded a Nobel Prize for lying, laughably referred to as a "Peace Prize".

Protagoras and Kwondass have both posted baseless, despicable sliming of real science and of people with the temerity to publish the truth about the fraud of AGW.

The scientific basis for proof of AGW, by this pair?

None, just abuse, lies, and denial of science.

I am a realist, they are deniers.

Leo Lane

By now, given the volumes of scientific evidence supporting AGW, we should have moved on well into the policy arena. We haven’t. Therefore, I think that, for the most part, you and your super-hero menagerie do not deserve to be treated with anything other but derision and contempt. Why? Because you lot continually trot out the same old guff that has been systematically and effectively rebutted and rebuffed time and time again. You really do act like your heads are in the sand, and your butts pointed to the troposphere, emitting a very potent greenhouse gas.

The issue of climate change finds scientists on the one side who are doing the research and who are in broad agreement over the issues; on the other side there is a hodge-podge assortment of different characters and nefarious groups pushing reprehensible agendas. Their primary agenda, as I see it, is a political one, based on ‘far right’ or neo-conservative ideology - which loathes the role of government in the economy. Real scientists are naturally sceptical, but they accept the burgeoning evidence behind AGW, whereas the other side (aka your super heroes) distorts, twists and misrepresents the empirical data, all in support of a pre-determined worldview, like yours.

It is my opinion that people like you do not deserve to be treated as intellectual equals. You certainly haven’t shown the capacity to even read the primary source material that the IPCC have reported on. However, this is just an opinion site, and I respect your right to present your opinion. Nevertheless, I will not stand back and just wistfully watch your attempt (in your simple ignorance of the science) to subvert the real science by your anti-intellectual posturing.

(Thanks to Jeff)

More bluster, kwonder,because you have no science to back the false assertion of AGW.

Referring back to the IPCC is pathetic. I have given you the material showing that the attempt of the IPCC to back up an unsupported opinion, has failed.

Talking about volumes of science is either ignorant or disingenuous.

Just designate one source of the science backing the basis of AGW, which you continually, without any basis, say exists.

All you are able to produce is purported science based on a false, unproven premise. AR4 is irrelevant. It contains no such science, so you raise it as a diversion, from your utter failure.

It is laughable, in your position, to attempt to talk down to me.

You are either confused or dishonest, or you would put forward honest science, to back your assertion. You have completely failed to do so.

Your Climategate fraudsters' "science", attempting to refute the accounting for all global warming from natural sources, did not last the proverbial five minutes. The standards of the Hadley miscreants, in putting their names to "scientific studies" while the evidence of their fraud is on the internet, for all to see, are abysmal.

Your wholehearted backing of them, for the, albeit, short time that it took to prove their study to be nonsense, is on the same level.

>> Just designate one source of the science backing the basis of AGW <<

Svante Arrhenius

Qanda - I am not as generous as you. Free speech does not include the right to deliberately deceive and the right to disagree should not include Leo Lane's motive to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

This peer-reviewed paper shows just how liars and science diddlers can peddle un-scientific claptrap and mis-information with impunity and will still be reported uncritically by conservative ideologues in the media. Clearly these ideologues have nothing but contempt for the Australian public and arrogantly believe they can continue treating the them as retards.

http://www.2009jeaconference.au.com/papers.html

Yeah, I know what you mean Protagoras, but what else are you supposed to do on a site like this?

Thanks for the link, the embedded paper (Elaine McKewon)

http://www.2009jeaconference.au.com/documents/pdfs/Elaine_McKEWON.pdf

puts Leo's mindless and ignorant guff in perspective.

"Significantly, the regional papers of News Corp and Fairfax also covered the book (Plimer's 'bible') more favourably than their metro counterparts. This further demonstrates that regional editors responded to their readers’ political opposition to the ETS, and that the editorial approach to coverage was left to individual editors, not dictated by parent publishing companies.

Meanwhile, the overall continued denialist bias of News Corp papers in Australia also runs counter to Rupert Murdoch’s turnaround on climate change in 2006. Metropolitan newspapers’ coverage of the book revealed ongoing tension between News Corp and Fairfax as they compete to direct the public conversation on climate change. The Australian, an ideologically conservative paper, seems firmly entrenched in the editorial policy of giving voice to denialists.

The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, perceived as ‘leftist’ papers (at least in comparison to The Australian), endorse the scientific consensus on climate change - apart from its conservative opinion columnists.

This study confirms the finding of Carvalho (2007) that ideological cultures play a primary role in the media’s coverage of climate change issues. The ideological culture of a media organisation and its audience is both reflected in and reinforced by the paper’s selection of ‘expert’ sources, the reliability attributed to claims and the quantity of media space dedicated to these experts and their claims. The political goals associated with climate change coverage also have a strong ideological basis."

Summary: MSM, shock-jocks (aka Bolt, Ackerman, Devine, Jones et al) have a lot to answer for the damage they are doing to real science.