Still can't admit that it's but one hypothesis of several, can you Protagoras?

Still, doubt never is the currency of the faithful, is it?

Your desperate flailing about Creationism was a right cackler - yes, I *would* be talking about my collection of Permian fossils if I was a Creationist, wouldn't I? The Creationists I've had many a letters-to-the-editor battles with would be quite surprised to find that I'm secretly one of them (ah! perhaps that's just my cover? You'll never know ...).

Still, it's par for the course with your modus operandi - get caught out making unwarranted assertions, so revert to the only defense you know: attack, no matter how ridiculous you make yourself look.

Still, at least we know where you're cutting and pasting some of your stuff from - it reminds me of the line in 'A fish called Wanda': 'Apes don't read philosophy!' 'Yes they do, they just don't understand it!'

Then they throw poo at people, which has been about the sum total of *your* contribution to this discussion, or any other.

Clownfish,

"- I think you might be confusing that with a 'Land Before Time' video you watched, once. ;)"

ROFL

Protagonist.....you say:

”Algoreisrich - What you actually mean is that carbon mitigation might impede your selfish vested interests!

YES.... you got me! fair and square.... I am selfish..I want a lower electricity cost! I want a cleaner environment..yep..u dunit..I'm a selfish bloke.

But I believe my 'selfish' interest is also in the interests of a better cleaner planet and humanity in general.

I'm not a 'denialist' in the sense you mean.. though I have serious doubts about the reality of 'Global Warming' when the promotion of that idea makes a few people, including the UN's Mr Environment, Maurice Strong and the Greens Media Darling "me" (Al Gore) and various others (including George Soros) inREDDDDDIbly richhhhh beyond your wildest dreams or imagination.

Let's not forget that other word which goes along with 'rich'..it's "power"

POLITICS OF STEALTH.

Obama has just banned off shore drilling. Fact.
Obama says it is for the benefit of the environment. Fact.
OBAMA'S administration has just LOANED $2,000,000,000 to the Brazillian DEEEEEEEP water drilling company PETROGAS (which makes 15,000,000,000 profit) to assis them in DEEEEEP water drilling.

George SOROS is a major share holder/investor in PETROGAS.

The cost of banning off shore drilling in USA is $330,000,000/month in lost rig worker wages.

QUESTION......if Obama really cares for 'The Environment'...why does he facilitate much deeper 14,000 ft off shore drilling in BRAZIL..when he bans the BP rig at 5000 ft.?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Proto...it's allll about politics and money and power..

Obama on 'SNL' "OFFSHORE DRILLING in oURRRRR back yard is badddddd..but in Brazils its fine :)" *Imaginary skit*

SIMPLE SOLUTION... small carbon tax... direct subsidy for SOLAR panels/Grid Connect inverters. NO TRADING.

My interest ? none..I'm scared of heights. but if you want to go halves in a container load of quality chinese panels and THEN we would have an interest :)

Clownfish – you’re hilarious even if you are a troll and a wasted space. What you will find in several of my previous posts is the following quote:

"All things are connected. Whatever befalls the earth befalls the sons of the earth. Man does not weave the web of life; he is merely a strand of it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.”

Problem being Clownfish, you wouldn’t know a VOC from a sock - it’s a no brainer – except for retards and useful idiots – go figure!

Now back on your potty chair – take a manual of environmental toxicology with you. Noooooo! Not for that you fool!

Protagoras, you do realise that the moving speech you quoted from Chief Seattle was actually made up by the scriptwriter for an environmental documentary, in 1971?

Unsurprising, really: what is perpetually cited as a moving call to respect Mother Gaia from a First Nation visionary is really the work of a dope smokin' hippy idealist. Then again, when you're dealing with the type of people who get their science from an organisation that quotes a mountaineering article as peer-reviewed science - and still gets its numbers arse-about - that's only to be expected.

And I'm sure your socks are *full* of VOCs.

Pericles

The search results of 1.5 million can obviously be reduced by filtering or applying more detailed search terms. The relevant chapters in AR4 will return the more up to date literature – bearing in mind that there has been 4 years of subsequent research.

What needs to be remembered is that ‘science' is not determined as in a court of law, despite the fact that some people would like it to be. On the contrary and as anyone who does science knows, it is ‘judged’ by weight of evidence in the peer review process.

That is what I was alluding to in my earlier post – there is vast literature supporting the conclusions of humanity’s role in the current period of global warming. While you may not get ‘one’ paper that is the ‘be all and end all’ to climate change, collectively they produce compelling evidence for our role in it. This 'evidence' dates back to before Svente Arhenius, and has been getting more robust ever since.

The following is a “form of peer-reviewed, science-based executive summary.” It is the Technical Summary of AR4’s Working Group I - "The Physical Science Basis"

http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-ts.pdf

You might also find this interesting, a “Good Practice Guidance Paper on Detection and Attribution Related to Anthropogenic Climate Change” – in preparation for AR5 as we speak.

http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/guidancepaper/IPCC_D&A_GoodPracticeGuidancePaper.pdf

Sorry, the links do take up bandwidth, the latter much less.

We need real leaders, not just politicians. As for power, control and vested interests - Joe Public is a pawn. In the end, we have to choose the direction we travel, and on current form - I am not optimistic.