Ken Fabos writes:

“AGW isn't controversial except for the fake, puffed up, ideological think-tank generated 'controversy' that relies completely on dismissing the abundant legitimate science out of hand in favour of dubious counter-'science'.”

Oh such certainty! Who dares to argue against such dogmatism? Such certainty comes from faith. It has no part in empirical science.

In an earlier post on this thread I drew attention to a group of Fellows of the Royal Society requesting a review of the science behind the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis (AGWH).
I also understand that the French Academy of Sciences will be reviewing the scientific evidence later in the year.
Finally, there is much published on the web, by competent climate scientists, which questions the claims of AGWH. These should be objectively discussed and refuted, (if possible) by evidence and not by meaningless polemics.

I used to be a professional 'greenie'. I drew a wage for it!

During this time I saw how "greenie" is a religion with a belief system that has grown less rational as it has grown more powerful.

Saving small fluffy animals from fire is good? No! Not if it is done by preventing hazard-reduction burning. A patchwork of small, cool winter fires kills few furry animals.

But the vast hot holocaust of a the inevitable bushfires, which lay waste huge areas of forest kills vast numbers of 'fluffies', as well as trees, sheep, towns and people.

Rules like the wind requirement. There needs to be some wind to blow away the evil smoke pollution, but not too much, or the fire may escape. These goldilocks rules make it impossible to do the hazard reduction burning that is needed.

A myriad of little rules put in by greenies have made effective hazard reduction impractical. The result is a cycle of inevitable enviromental (and human) destruction every 10 years or so.

Ken Fabos, the denialists are the pushers of AGW, despite the fact that there is no scientific backing for the assertion of any contribution by human emissions. You are a denialist, ken, in your refusal to accept the absence of any science to support AGW, or the science which shows that the warming, which occurs, is all accounted from natural sources.

This is the state of the science. There is no scientific basis for the assertion of AGW, and there is peer reviewed science to show that it is untenable.

You call the realists “denialists”. All that they deny is your baseless assertions, while you deny the established science which is contrary to your nonsense.

Not one of the posts, here, backing this vacuous article, put forward any scientific basis for the assertion of AGW.

The observed effects of human activity, such as heat islands, which have supported, in the public mind, the unscientific assertion of the IPCC that AGW is “very likely”, have no support from scientific evaluation, despite the billions spent in the desperate quest for scientific justification of the mendacious IPCC’s baseless “very likely”.

The output of human activities has no measurable significance in relation to global warming.

Why, with no scientific basis, Ken, do you support the AGW fraud?.

Nowhere in Tony Kevin’s article, or subsequent posts, does he give any scientific basis for the assertion of AGW. He ignores the requests for an acceptable basis, and reasserts his baseless theme.

He has no credibility, but hangs on, hoping to fool the gullible.

Thanks, partTimeParent for a genuine rundown on the pernicious greens.

This has been posted on another thread, it seems appropriate to post it here too.

http://tinyurl.com/understanding-denial

The bush fires? They were exacerbated by extreme climatic conditions, that is all - just expect more of it.

Thanks, qanda, for confirming that you have no science to back up the unscientific assertion that human emissions have any measureable effect on global warming.

You might explain why you consider anyone is interested in another article by the deranged Debora MacKenzie.

I suppose you cannot wait for another period of excitement, which you experienced when the Climategate miscreants posted a "study", peer reviewed by associates of the fraudsters, and rushed it to publication, purporting to refute the settled science which excludes any basis for the assertion of AGW.

While they stalled the publication of the refutation of their baseless study, it was a heady time for you qanda, asserting that the pretend science from the discredited East Anglia group had refuted the real science. I cannot see such a travesty happening again, so do not expect such a time to come again.

On the other hand, you have resisted the truth all this time, so you may never accept it.

Why you were so excitedd, when there was never any science to back up the IPCC's weasel worded "very likely", I do not know. "Refuting" the real science did not add any credibility to the pretend science that you so ineptly push.

Of course I will never understand people like you, who deny true science, a peer reviewed study by reputable scientists, demonstrating that there is no room for the perennially touted, never proven, "very likely" of IPCC. You are a true denialist, who has the hide to call people, who assert real science, "deniers'.

You are a confused fellow, qanda. You should keep away from denial sites like Wikipedia and Realclimate. They are dishonest.

Even Gore has given up on that, and thinks we should not look to fact, because it disproves his assertions in his film, which won a prize for presenting 35 lies in only 90 minutes. It also won him a fan club, which assembles and chants "liar" and "fraud", whenever he appears in public.

Take care, qanda. Asserting nonsense can have repercussions.

Banjo: You know the Haitian earthquake was blamed on AGW. The Icelandic volcano, most probably the recent Venuatu volcanic eruption, the Lennox head Tornado, and of course the catastrophic sea level rises. (Where you ask)

Tell these people in 1831 Major Thomas Mitchell went through to Tamworth and beyond and noticed bush fires, too.

Climate has nothing to do with bush fires. As it was it was thought
that an electrical fault was to blame. Wires fell from an electricity
pole and ignited dry matter at its base.

What people or some do not acknowledge is climate is what we expect
and weather is what we get. Weather kills us. So do volcanoes, and earthquakes, Tsunamis, floods. Not to forget plagues, swine flu (?) and mosquitoes. If anything the globe ain't getting
warmer we are graduating to another mini or worse glacial period, and there is nothing we poor bipeds can do about it. Because CO2 doesn't change climates, period.

You know what some twit said, that gum trees only became fire resilient in the last 150 years. Give me patience Oh weather God.