Ken,” On climate change the fears have strong scientific basis supported by the world's leading scientific organisations.”

This is incorrect. The last time this assertion was made, on OLO, I asked that someone come up with the so-called “science”.

You did not and neither did anyone else, because there is no such science.

The effect of human emissions is not measurable, and its effect is negligible.

If there were any such science the IPCC would be telling us, instead of coming up with attempts to mislead people by characterising it as “very likely”.

That is not a scientific statement, but a guess, and based on an estimate by the IPCC which, if it had been correct, would have resulted in the satellite instruments showing a “hotspot”, in the troposphere, which they did not.

The basis of the guess is gone, but the IPCC, dishonestly, simply wondered if there were some problem with the satellites, rather than facing the truth.

As to the prestigious scientific bodies making baseless announcements, this is being corrected as the members, horrified at this travesty, regain control, and retract.

So where is your “strong scientific basis”, Ken?

Yes, environmental groups should admit mistakes, and so should conservatives or anyone else when the weight if scientific evidence is clear. Certainly some 'environmental groups' have made mistakes, however they are sometimes right.

It has become increasingly apparent though that many commentators are not so much 'pro-science' as they are 'anti-greenie'. These people only use/believe science when it agrees with their politics and god help you if it doesn't. Motes and beams.

Ho Hum, are you actually citing 'Dr.' Joseph Mercola, the guy with a rap sheet like this?

http://www.quackwatch.com/search/webglimpse.cgi?ID=1&query=mercola

The website you referred to also garnered this glowing recommendation:

'Each of these sites provides a huge amount of information, most or all of which promotes unsubstantiated theories and/or methods. They may be useful to researchers seeking descriptions of these theories and methods from their proponents. However, they should be avoided by persons seeking high-quality information on which to base a health-related decision.'

So, Deep-Blue, whose website did you copy that little gem from? I am familiar with all the facts you have presented. They were covered in my course on nuclear physics. Unlike a lot of the greenies who go on at length about nuclear power, I am actually fairly well versed in the science.

"It has become increasingly apparent though that many commentators are not so much 'pro-science' as they are 'anti-greenie'."
-Bugsy

I'm generally (but not always) anti-greenie precisely because I am so fanatically pro-science. As a member of the Skeptics, I have an unusually low tolerance for quacks, charlatans and pseudo-scientists - which an awful lot of greenies are. Many of them have no scientific background, and they are not ashamed about making use of pseudo-scientific claims if it will further their political agenda.

Here, here Riz - someone after my own heart.

Too often, I've had people assume I'm some sort of conservative pawn, because I take greens to task.

I'm all for a clean environment, like any sensible person (and it bugs me up the wall when that condescending bint, Tanya Ha, offers such sterling wisdom as composting one's scraps - which I've been doing all my life!), but I simply will not tolerate 'quacks, charlatans and pseudo-scientists', as you say.

Indeed Riz, I agree with you.

On the other side of the coin though, I have seen a disturbing tendency by a number of 'conservative' (for want of a better word) commentators to label scientists they do not agree with as quacks, charlatans and pseudo-scientists. In this manner they attempt to dismiss valid concerns as so much mumbo-jumbo. All they need is to quote a dissenting viewpoint and voila! 'That guys a nutter/wrong/whatever.'

We must all be careful that we do not dismiss valid scientific data as 'junk', simply because we do not agree with it. The quality of the data and experience of the researcher is important. Environmentalists are not the only ones to use ' pseudo'(or 'junk')-scientists to further their cause. There are some in the anti-GM crowd that wouldn't even consider themselves 'environmentalists'.