Ozandy:” Having my co-workers being accused of outright fraud when working with some of the most diligent, professional workers I've ever had the pleasure to work with is somewhat annoying.”

Put an end to it Ozandy.

Post a reference to just one scientific study which supports the assertion that human emissions contribute in any measureable way to global warming, and it will all stop.

Otherwise find a business that is not based on fraud

“Otherwise find a business that is not based on fraud”

Leo Lane – To date you have provided the reader with flawed, misleading or irrelevant information. To date, you have proved nothing except your duplicity. To date you have ignored any responses to your posts which may expose your dodgy strategies and impede your agenda.

Your apparent delusion that Benny Peiser’s attack on Oreske proves that A/climate change is a myth is hilarious particularly since Peiser lectures in social anthropology & sport sociology.

According to a search of 22,000 academic journals, Peiser has published 3 research papers in peer-reviewed journals: Sports Medicine, 2006; Journal of Sports Sciences (2004); and, Bioastronomy 2002: life among the stars (2004). None of these studies are related to human-induced climate change.

In addition and in regard to his critique of Oreskes, he subsequently admitted that only one of the research papers he used in his study refuted the scientific consensus on climate change, and that study was not peer-reviewed and was published by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

Furthermore, on 12 October 2006, he advised ABC’s Media Watch that:

“I only found out after Oreskes confirmed that she had used a different search strategy (see above). Which is why I no longer maintain this particular criticism. In addition, some of the abstracts that I included in the 34 "reject or doubt" category are very ambiguous and should not have been included.

“I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is (sic) agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous.”

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf

“The lies have had such effect that there is still a majority in the community, who accept the baseless AGW assertion.”

Is that so Leo Lane and what conclusions do you think any sane person should arrive at on climate change after being force-fed the “lies” and “baseless assertions” you perpetuate?

You really are fact challenged Protagoras. Benny Peiser never withdrew, as you assert. This lie was propagated on Wikipedia.. Lawrence Solomon attempted to correct it, and found that as fast as he retyped, Wikipedia changed the article back. These are the tactics which have discredited the alarmists, and particularly Naomi Oreskes. Obviously, you have no scientific study to base the AGW assertions.

You refer us to what Benny said in 2006 before information about the methods of the IPCC and the alarmists became widely known. It is now clear that the non scientifically based IPCC assertion cannot be sustained, and only ever had the backing of 5 scientists.

The best that the IPCC have contributed is the unscientific statement that scientists consider it “very likely”, that human emissions contribute to global warming.

Settled, peer reviewed science of July 2009, makes it 100% unlikely, in the real world, outside the corrupt world of the IPCC and its East Anglia miscreants. In fact only 5 unconflicted scientists support this unscientific guess.

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. They attack people, as they do not have any idea of presentation of a point of view on the issues.

I am not sure what argument ALGOREisRICH is putting, but we can thank him for the reference to 30,000 scientists “more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM’s Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong.”

http://whatthecrap.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/30000-scientists-rejecting-anthropomorphic-global-warming-hypothesis/

So against the 5 scientists who back the unscientific assertion that AGW is “very likely” we have over 31,000 who have put their name to a refutation of the IPCC’s nonsensical claim.

While it is inarguable that the climate is continuing to change, I challenge the suggestion that this is "ENTIRELY" due the effect of Homo Sapiens Sapiens on the planet, or even that we are a "Major" contributing factor.

It is a fact that the Earth goes through cycles of Ice Ages and has been doing so since before time began. The arrogance of scientists in suggesting that we are capable of affecting, one way or the other, a serious change in that is incredible (not taking into account the clowns who faked data when it didn't fit their hypotheses).

Yes, I disapprove of untrammeled pollution, but that is mainly due to its other effects, acid rain, etc.

But the fact remains that what gives the industries leading the counter-charge to the whole "global warming bandwagon" is the obdurate refusal of those who should know better to concede that our impact is not the major cause of the change in conditions over the last two centuries, if it were, how to explain the massive changes over the last two hundred thousand years?

That is the difficulty when something like this becomes a cause celebre, people with little to no knowledge grab it, then vigorously defend their position, without being able to concede an inch, because they don't know enough about the facts or even the position they are defending.

Yes, the climate is changing. Yes, some species will be unable to keep up with the pace of that change and will become locally or entirely extinct, but that is nature (it is what happened to the megafauna and the dinosaurs ffs).

Continuing to spout the untenable argument that we are solely at fault (or even responsible) for this, simply gives ammunition to those who continue to advocate environmentally irresponsible Corporate Behavior. If people want to talk about the changing environment, perhaps they should do so without the ego, the emotion and all the rest of the baggage.

Using junk science and fabricated evidence to establish the 'facts', harms the cause of those seeking to make corporations environmentally responsible.

"You really are fact challenged Protagoras. Benny Peiser never withdrew, as you assert. This lie was propagated on Wikipedia.”

Leo Lane - Only a freak with one half of one sensory neuron would confuse the ABC's Media Watch with Wikipedia so if the freak’s cap fits, wear it:

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf

“…..because they don't know enough about the facts or even the position they are defending.”

Touche Custard and one must ask if you know enough about climate change facts also?

Paleontology points to climate change without human influence — the Permo-Triassic extinction (great warming) — the Paleocene Thermal Maximum (sudden warming) and succeeding Early Eocene Thermal Maximum —the gradual Oligo-Miocene cooling — the gradual coolings and sudden warmings of the Pleistocene including the associated impacts of volcanism.

Similar to anthropogenic aerosols and carbon emissions, volcanoes impact climate change.

The most abundant gas typically released into the atmosphere from volcanic systems is water vapor followed by carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide .

Volcanoes also release smaller amounts of others gases, including hydrogen sulfide (H2S), hydrogen (H2), carbon monoxide (CO), hydrogen chloride (HCL), hydrogen fluoride (HF), and helium (He).

Human activities were responsible for some 36,300 million metric tons of CO2 emissions in 2008 (Le Quéré et al., 2009.)

The global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 123 to 378 million metric tons per year [Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998; Kerrick, 2001] Source: USGS

And despite Ian Plimer’s fallacious nonsense, the current anthropogenic CO2 emission rate of some 36,300-million metric tons of CO2 per year is about 100 to 300 times larger than the range of estimates for all global volcanic CO2 emissions. Catch on?

“Using junk science and fabricated evidence to establish the 'facts', harms the cause of those seeking to make corporations environmentally responsible.”

I'm in total agreement Custard, particularly with the following in mind:

Greed + Incompetence + Obfuscation + A Belief in Free Market Efficiency = DISASTER

PROTAGORAS

rave on all you want about the 'reality' of "Climate change"... of course it stands to reason that the more people..the more pollution.. etc.. the chances of a negative impact on the planet rise.

BUT.... the solution is NOT NOT NOT....Cap and TRADE laws.

The solution is careful management of a lot of our behavior, and a very simple solution to our CO2 etc emmissions.

TRADE.....of carbon emmission..."that" is the huge scam of the century.

The primary outcome is "Making me richer and more powerful" along with my network of co-collaborators.

NO NO NO...no Cap and TRADE! ! !

NO NO NO...no Emissions TRADING laws. ! ! !

There are toooo many vested political interests in that pie.

-Bob Carr (Envex carbon trading company)
-Al Gore (Generation Investements/Chicago Climate Exchange)
-Kathy Zoy (Shares in Smart meter company Landice and Gyr)
-Maurice Strong (UN "mr environment" a director of the Chicago Climate Exchange)

and many many others.

A BETTER SOLUTION
Small carbon tax on all of us...leading directly to Solar Panel/Grid Connect inverters for every home.

NO MONEY MAKING MIDDLE MEN!

(apologies to Poirot for 'loud' :)