Arguments about the science are not as relevant as risk. Global warming, or any other potentially catastrophic event, is a risk that needs to be incorporated into both private and public decision making. The existing evidence certainly points to a significantly high probability of extremely adverse events at some unknown future time.

Regardless of who is right in the scientific debate, sufficient evidence exists to warrant internalizing environmental externalities on public and private balance sheets - simply as a risk management strategy. Not to do so is like driving a car, or running a company, without taking out appropriate insurance.

ozandy "it is just science", yes, as we know it and as so many arrogantly assume that science today is the be all and end all.

The expectation that if a scientist says something and is challanged by a non-scientist, it amounts to heresy - one can hear your outrage at scientists being questioned at all. Many representatives of the warmist industry reflect this same outrage - how dare you question authority.

I'm sure alchemists in the 18th century felt the same way - these were guys at the top of their science, the best available, they wrote papers they formed societies.

We may find in years to come, that your entire climate science area is wrong, that the way you do things is wrong. (we might not)

Yes, climate is complex, yet you all portray this arrogance that you actually know all about it - clearly you do not, and the layman's response is to question your forecasting ability and then you all look like a bunch of rabbits.

There are questions skeptics continue to ask, that are unanswered, that are glossed over by lofty comments of conspiracies and oil company paid comments. Utter rubbish, even if that were true, you still have not answered the underlying questions relating CO2 to rising temperature.

The attraction to forecast rising temperatures when they are rising naturally is obvious, the panic sets in when the temperatures drop or even wobble and you can't explain them.

The guy from WUWT is in Australia, all he did was check sites, now I see qanda lambastes him for it, for fact checking, is that out of embarrassment, that scientists didn't realize their raw data was coming from corrupted sites - another reason why climate science is under doubt.

Skeptics want these questions answered, arguing from the POV of authority is not scientific, it is more in keeping with religion, get facts and not facts cross checked by your mates - climate science has overstepped, is not as knowledgeable about its subject as it makes out, is clearly in need of a big clean up.

Fraccy... the Daily show...I saw that.. I LOVED it :)

Stewart has a tremendous reserach team.. you must try Glenn Beck..(who Stewart mocked) but here's the thing.

When Beck says "Under these new laws, electricity prices will skyrocket"
the very next thing he shows is Obama saying "Under our cap and trade laws.. electricity prices will skyrocket" (as in..video)

I love Beck and I love Stewart.

Hey..can I offer you a few options in my company ?

NOW..I control not only the INPUT side of Carbon trading.. through my massive shareholding in Climate Exchange..but I've just bought 23,000,000+ shares in the OUTPUT side.. (offset business)

In fact.. I and my hedge fund investors are going to be unspeakably RICH RICH RICH out of all this, I can see it now.. new upmodel lear jet... hmm bigger house.... all kinds of 'goodies' that most ordinary folks just dream and drool about.

We'll allocate a significant amount of funding to furthering the magnificent work of my "Alliance for Climate Protection" and their efforts to persuade the gullible public of the need for Cap and TRADE..so your investment would be safe :)

PROTAGORUS... you mention Richard Linzden....peer reviewed etc.

read it and weep!

QUOTE (Wiki)
In a 2009 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Lindzen points out that the earth was just emerging from the "Little Ice Age" in the 19th century and concludes that it is "not surprising" to see warming after that. He goes on to state that the IPCC claims were...
“ "...based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn't reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.

Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false."
UNQUOTE.

BAH..I hate it when people threaten my economic interests.. Linzden might soon have an 'accident'.

You say "5 climate scientists are hardly a consensus" but 30,000 in the USA is closer..... look it up.

CARBON TRAAAAAAAADING is the scam...not 'global warming'..

SIMPLE SOLUTION .. small tax on our electricity bills.. subsidise Solar Panels/Grid connect inverters....DONE!

OZANDY.. here is an honesty test.. do you support 'Carbon TRADING' ?

We have a nice crowd of hecklers, with not a relevant fact between them, but plenty of pointless nonsense. We even have an allegation that I have something to do with the oil industry.

How about one of you come up with any science which shows that human emissions have any measureable effect on global warming?

That has to be the starting point, for any assertion that anthropogenic warming should be considered as anything but a scam.

The patent dishonesty of the alarmists was the motivation I had to look at AGW, starting with Naomi Oreskes, who, very early in the scam, came up with the ludicrous proposition that there was a consensus of scientists, on global warming.

The prime motivation of a group primate, is to gain approval of the group. If an attitude or approach is shown to be accepted by the group, then that is the most important motivation for acceptance by a group member. If a person is convinced of a group attitude, the first reaction is to join it to gain acceptance. AGW scamsters simply lie about community acceptance of their baseless assertions, to motivate others to support them.

Truth and conscious thought come last, if they arise at all. The immediate reaction, of a person, which may never be followed by any other consideration, is to act in the way which gains acceptance by the group.

Benny Peiser quickly showed that her research was flawed, but the alarmists continue to push the ridiculous notion, of the consensus, because it is successful. The lies have had such effect that there is still a majority in the community, who accept the baseless AGW assertion.

You all have conscious minds, which, if exercised, can give consideration to the basis for AGW. You will not find any scientific basis for it, despite the billions spent on fruitless attempts to establish such a base. The fraudsters have successfully manipulated the group mind, and as this article shows, are now maneuvering for underdog status.

They understand manipulation of the community, but have no scientific backing for their assertions.

Interesting that not a single warmer is prepared to have the science tested? This I might add is the very science that convinced you in the first place.

One has to wonder why the skeptics are willing to have their perceptions challenged and potentially proved wrong, yet the warmers refuse to have their perspectives tested by science?

It’s not that there is any fear that the science, if reviewed might not hold up even for scientists is it? It’s all someone else’s fault isn’t it?

It’s only a suggestion for goodness sake. What is so terrible about that? Have you become so reactionary that even a content free “suggestion” is described as spin and deceit?

If we had a scientific means of testing for the existence of God, agnostics would support it but I doubt that any religion would. Why? because it’s a matter of faith not fact. Refusal to accept a review and testing of the AGW science is likewise an issue of faith and not science.

How desperate must you be to reject scientific testing of the very science that sustains you