Leo, perhaps we should have a "Climate Fools Day" in Oz like they have in the UK. At least we could have a good laugh instead of trying to get facts out of the warmers

LL
So where is your science to backup your misinformation.

You are pointed to sources that are impeccable, why should anyone respond directly when the information is readily available.

I think it is because it is beyond your ability to understand the science or it frightens you to death and want to bury your head.

You, as stated above, need to do some serious reading on the subject as what you are writing is nonsense and unsupported.

The real science is their go look and do not ask people to spoon feed you.

Warming continues: year to date (Jan-Oct) tied with 2005 for hottest on record, despite La Niña cooling so are you denying http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2010&month=10

Are you going to risk your child or have the surgery done?

Leo, you state that there is "no science to back the assertion of AGW" when I and others have given you clear direction to sound science, published in reputable scientific journals. It seems that you are not interested in evidence. I can only repeat my recommendation to you, that if you are seriously interested in learning about the science, a good place to start is with the many pages of references to peer-reviewed scientific papers, at the end of The Copenhagen Diagnosis.
Most of these papers, and certainly their abstracts, are freely available on-line.

Peter A, I think you made the point succinctly. Sceptics are pretty convinced that the AGW sources are now compromised, tainted and more importantly, overstated.

You on the other hand, think they are “impeccable”.

Some of us feel that the only reason this debate in the public domain is because it is politics and not science. You on the other hand suggest that “it is beyond our ability to understand the science”.

So why would you demand scientific support from sceptics when the public has no scientific skills. Not making much sense are you?

Why do warmers wish to bully the general public with your favorite links, like minded opinion and your conclusions when we are mostly not equipped to make scientific judgment?

When are you going to take your “scientific” understanding and challenge the “scientists” that disagree with you? Go bully a scientist.

The only people that seem to have moved on are the sceptics, what part of total ambivalence don’t you understand?

Spindoc, mate .. well said, completely agree with you.

Of course the alarmists are now blaming the skeptics for subverting the general public, when you are quite right, they are ambivalent, the alarmists are yet another crowd of irritating, chanting, money demanding, self interested, finger waggers who the general public pays as much attention to as fish to bicycle salesmen.

the alarmists now accuse the skeptics of conspiracy, yet reject at the same time any conspiracy on their side (CRU anyone?) it is becoming a farce. Where is all the skeptical finding? We know where all the alarmist funding is, billions of it, yet somehow the skeptics, with no funding at all are successful? What?

No, the general public reject the alarmist manifesto, plain and simple, you all just want someone to blame and skeptics are handy. It won't change anything, because you won't learn why the public has turned off and change, it's easier to fall into the same old rut, blame someone .. when, it's really you alarmists who are the problem.

Hardly even amusing anymore, alarmists are like those pitied folks who wear sandwich boards proclaiming "the end if nigh", who wander the downtown areas of big cities.

I looked at the last paragraph:
History demonstrates the science is not "settled" and never will be. Only a Royal Commission into the science of climate change will provide the most climate effective and cost effective solutions in this debate.

Therefore does it not follow that since the science isn't settled that the recommendations from a Royal Commission will be equally suspect?

Indeed the call for a Royal Commission reminds me of the the good Catholic who confessed the same sin of theft to several different confessors - his reason? He wanted to strike a confessor who didn't demand that he pay restitution to his victim.

This absurd piece or reasoning will lead us to infinite regress of authorities until the science meets the prevailing political consensus.

(Of course this is already happening the the IPCC reports - at no stage Jensen deals with the way political spin doctors massage the report before it is published.)