“When we reach the level of Protagoras' insight...” (Pericles)

“…they would also believe that you are slightly unhinged.” (Shadow Minister)

Gentlemen - You are particularly devious this morning which illustrates the sordid depths to which denialists (as opposed to sceptics) will stoop. Your hypocritical omission reads:

“As you will see, Karin G, Loxton, the impotently frothing and grossly inaccurate Protagoras and, inevitably, the incorrigible and clueless qanda, always avoid the question of the complete lack of a scientific base for the assertion of AGW.” (Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 19 June 2010 4:35:18 PM)

Oops - now as they say in the movies: “Take me to your leader”:

‘Lord’ Monckton: “Warmists are Nazi youth, bedwetting minnies, crypto-communists and the New Vorld Order.” Oh dear and your hero falsely boasted that he’d received an $80,000 libel settlement from the Guardian Newspaper. This lying fool keeps threatening those who oppose his pseudo-scientific claims with libel suits yet none have materialised.

And on it goes - an abusive “denial-a-palooza,” - the conspiracy theorists, industry parrots, puzzle-makers and ‘scientists’ for hire. At the Heartland crankfest in 2008 there was a large gathering of people. Poor little fossilised Davids battling the Goliath of the environmental establishment.

When a Heartland organizer made an announcement asking all the scientists in the large hall to move to the front for a group picture, 19 men did so.

Yet the denalist plays dumb when presented with others' questions or proposals (see Leo Lane). One is sometimes amazed at how smart an industry lobbyist can be until a proposal is presented they don't want to answer!

Climate Scientist and sceptic, John Christy conceded that "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the atmosphere and sending quantities of greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate change hasn't been increased (sic) in the past century."

“the complete lack of a scientific base for the assertion of AGW.” Tried research Leo Lane? Are you and your partners-in-propaganda, dumb or chronically dyslexic? http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=4911

Squeers.. as a consumer I can assure you I am not a minimalist
But I am entitled to be sceptical about you....

Imagining myself “free”

90% of what we matters in our lives exists only between our ears

Obviously, my imagination believes I am free.

It also explains why you imagine you are enslaved.

It also reflects how the optimist sees the glass half full and the pessimist sees it as half empty.

I would not change my life as an optimist for your ....... sense of contradiction

Grant Musgrove the notion of “internalizing environmental externalities on public and private balance sheets”

Fine words... now I wonder what they actually mean, when most people, whilst knowing the term “balance sheet” have no idea what it actually means, I include many executives and all politicians in that statement
But I would suggest it will make a hell of a mess to the debt to equity ratio.
You see, people are not required to “understand” or be qualified to make public comment on things... and
Climate change is no different to book keeping in that regard.
I also see the term “Greed” being bandied around by a few here.... it is the way the inept denigrate the able, feeling that greed is the motive behind ambition, yet without ambition nothing ever happens
L:ikewise “Self interest” gets wrongly retitled “Selfishness”

But it is all just in the minds of the pessimists who, to be able to live with their own fear and inadequacies, label the capable as greedy and selfish.

Protagoras, that is a reference to another failed attempt to attack the real peer reviewed, settled science which shows that there is no room for the assertion of anthropogenic global warming.

The date of this article is 10 March 2010, and as at 22 March, publication of the refutation by McLean et al was being stalled by the Journal which ultimately published it. The window of opportunity to use this nonsense closed a long time ago. You are as usual, well behind the pack, Protagoras, and completely out of date.

Even if this clumsy effort were successful, which it, of course, was not, it does not give any scientific basis, for assertion of any measureable effect of human emissions, on global warming. It would simply mean that neither side had any scientific basis.

The realists do not need a scientific base, to point out that the alarmists have no scientific basis for their assertion of AGW

You cannot be as stupid as you pretend, Protagoras, so this is just another pretence that you have an answer, in the hope that people are sick of looking up your references, which you invariably pretend to be something they are not.

Again you have produced no scientific basis for the assertions of the alarmists, and drawn attention to the failure of the usual suspects, from East Anglia to make any impression with their attempts to discredit real, honest science.

There is no scientific basis for the assertion of AGW, just a weak, unscientific “very likely” by the now discredited IPCC.

Anyone who looked at the reference that I gave above, would be aware that the Climategate gang have made every effort to mislead, but will not take the step of falsely asserting that there is any science to support the claim of AGW. They are only prepared to deny reality.

“So, to state categorically, as you did, that the Permo-Triassic extinction *was* due to 'great warming' is, as I said, more than a little disingenuous.”

Clownfish – That's a lie since I said no such thing and your manipulation of my information is typical of what one must endure from denialists. The Permian-Triassic extinction is commonly known as the ‘great dying’ or the ‘great warming’ but you would have no idea.

If you object to the terminology, confront Bruce Tiffney, Professor of Palaeobiology at the U of California who I quoted in the links I provided as substantiation and which you've conveniently ignored or can’t fathom. I’m sure Tiffney would appreciate your assault, you being the 'expert' and all.

If anyone is looking for indisputable proof of man’s manipulation of the climate look no further than anthropogenic aerosols despite Curmudgeon’s curious dismissal of this serious phenomenon. A research paper examined at length a huge cloud of industrial air pollution and dust that now covers over 10 million square kilometres of the Southeast Asian region, which is called the Asian brown cloud (ABC).

‘Additional anthropogenic brown clouds are forming over eastern China; northeastern Pakistan, India, Bangladesh and Myanmar; Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand, and Vietnam; sub-Saharan Africa southward into Angola, Zambia and Zimbabwe; and the Amazon Basin in South America and have formed over the eastern US and Europe.’

The ABC is also impacting the climate in Australia and these light-absorbing carbon particle pollutants' warming effect is around 40-70 percent of that of carbon dioxide and even at concentrations below five parts per billion, such dark carbon triggers melting, and may be responsible for much of the Arctic warming.

You are pathetically obtuse Leo Lane. Carter, McLean, de Freitas fudged the data fullstop! The link I provided was established by the eminent marine researcher Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg who together with Professor Terry Hughes and Professor John Pandolfi were ranked in the world’s top 20 by the international science citation analysts Thomson Reuters and ScienceWatch, for the decade 1999-2009.

They too have to endure the unmitigated swill you and your fraudulent oil-shilling scientists perpetuate!

Pericles

How much "certainty" do you want? If it is absolute 100% certainty, you are not going to get it - science doesn't work like that, you know that. You should also be aware that scientists are saying things like "90 - 95% likely that humanity's contribution to the current global warming is about 80%" (search 'attribution').

The point is, as more research and testing is done on climate sensitivity and attribution (and it is) the more robust the conclusions are becoming. This is not to say that the science is certain, settled or absolute. Indeed, it will just take one alternative robust explanation for the current global warming "consensus" to be over-turned. This has not been done, despite contrarian links to so called denier' blog-sites. Moreover, if you take CO2 out of the science, no amount of natural variation can explain the recent warming period we have been experiencing, none.

Sure, we don't know everything - but we do know a heluvalot.

Fortunately, scientists are a pedantic lot - crossing the 'i's and dotting the 't's - they have to be, their life's work relies on their professional conduct and integrity (as we are all aware of). Unfortunately, they are not very good at explaining quite often complex science to laymen in layman's terms (when they do, it is often taken out of context or spun for a particular agenda).

It is the politicians and economists that will decide the policies addressing 'climate change' - based ostensibly not on the science, but on how it impacts the short term. The pronouncements ranging from it's "crap" to a "moral" imperative, and everything else in between is not helpful.

As we saw in Copenhagen, the politicians are in a bun fight on how and when to tackle the issues - they were not debating the science.

cont'd Pericles

Pericles

As to Leo's question, I surmise he probably doesn't understand any of the peer reviewed papers referenced in AR4 (WG1 - Scientific Basis) on climate sensitivity or attribution of global warming. I doubt he has read them because if he has, then it discounts his assertion and challenges his oft repeated question.

Nevertheless, just because he/anyone can't be bothered to read AR4 (or actually read the papers referenced) doesn't mean they don't exist, they do. Unfortunately, so called "sceptics" don't want to venture into the science that would, also, discount their proclaimed scepticism. Put simply, a real sceptic would actually read everything they're sceptical about - they don't.