2011 brings us 25 years of “unstoppable warming” warnings from the thousands of consensus scientists apparently who somehow have always out numbered the climate change protesters. If crisis was real, not only would the scientists be marching, we would be talking about the crisis, not debating it’s existence. And it’s been two and a half decades. A quarter of a century.
A wave of former believers has arrived who see further belief dividing the efforts of environmentalism and worst of all, the dragging of the progressive message to the people, down with it. And how foolish do we all look? We act like we WANT this crisis to be real and we condemn our very own children to a DEATH BY CO2. We need love, not windmills. We need to act like liberals again who question and challenge authority, not bow to a fat American politician promising to tax the air and lower the seas and make the weather colder.
This was our Iraq War people. Our fear mongering with our climate WMD’s could keep us out of power for decades. Drop the CO2 and start anew I say.

What did the IPCC scientists all agree on?

1-Human CO2 is impacting the climate.

2-The effects will be:

a-"little if any to negligible"
to
b-"unstoppable warming' -as in death.

Remove the CO2 factor from the equation and nothing changes. We would still strive to be responsible environmentalists except the spear of fear is removed from our backs. And as far as being dedicated progressives, we sit in the dark for an hour once a year and call it radical

rache, interesting that you feel the need to explain skepticism and provide the differentiation between skeptics and denialists.

Unfortunately you carefully avoided the one explanation that matters.

I think most skeptics accept the CRU’s findings on warming. Professor Phil Jones stated in his testimony to the Parliamentary hearings in the UK, that there was no significant warming since 1995. I for one accept there is some global warming and I believe Professor Jones on this when he further says that the warming measured is not statistically significant.

That said I now await the two divergent sets of scientific opinion to get together and agree an explanation and if necessary, action. Why are you trying so hard to prevent this and why is your "assessment" more important than the CRU's?

Might I also point out that when you state << nobody has broken ranks and no whistleblower has come forward so on balance, >> can I point you to “Climategate”?

And before you tell me that these were “hacked”, the embedded data headers show that these files came from “archive” and could only have been accessed by “root level” password authority (the highest level) from within the CRU. Added to this the Norfolk Police investigation is stalled so no conclusions have “officially” been drawn. Both these facts counter your claims.

If you were to put as much effort into sticking to facts rather than inventing them, you might begin to understand that the groups of fellow Australians you are denigrating are capable of significantly clearer thinking than yourself.

Why else would you need to create excuses for those who do not share your faith? This only explains your insecurity and not mine.

rache, when you start to make up “excuses” the sections of our community that disagree with you, you are already lost

[Deleted. Wrong thread.]

Popnperish says "Never mind that 97% of climate scientists think climate change is real and anthropogenic in origin..."

Coincidentally, Andrew Bolt's blog yesterday sourced this article:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/consensus_opiate.pdf which unpacked the 97 per cent scam.

Analysis of the original survey shows the real rate of support for human caused global warming is 0.73 per cent.

Shows how uncritical the warmers are and how desperate they are to find any sort of grubby statistic to support the frauds of the AGW charlatans.

Of all denialists KenH supports Michael's article the most firmly. Runner wins the laughs.

"Taxpayers are feeding this guy." As they do Senator Bernardi. Inconsistency and special pleading/ad-hoc reasoning.

"Most obviously, Rowan relies in large part on appeals to authority, rather than producing anything vaguely original in the way of evidence or thought....". Followed hypocritically the next day by;

"Coincidentally, Andrew Bolt's blog yesterday sourced this article:...". - Contradictory appeal to authority, void of science [Bolt is not an 'authority' but a durable denialist] and marked evidence by KenH to not *understand* the abuse of data strengthened further in part by a failure to grasp Bolt's mantra. If appeal to authority is proven then KenH has fallen to Tu quoque.

Also, from 97% [the correct figure] to "0.73%" is simply a flat earth argument. It deserves no respect, if not ridicule. "Grubby statistic". - Ad hominem.

Ian Enting's exposure of Plimer's statistical misconduct is an excellent and extensive example of how such blatant misinformation is spread;

http://bit.ly/eHc65r

As Michael noted evidence for aliens, faked moon landing - and I'll add poisonous/lethal/autism causing vaccines, hidden cancer cures, Big Pharma inventing disease, HIV being 'man made', etc, etc - are all analogues for Mr. Bolt's scurrilous, unconscionable republishing of junk science and manipulated statistics.

Also, again the above falls to a conspiracy theory without any explanation as to why/how scientists would/could be controlled en masse across the globe. The only refuge for such intellectual paucity is the Ad ignorantiam fallacy.

Michael must be applauded. This divide is so ubiquitous a Rapture-ready Young Earth Creationist Evangelical Christian referred to 'manipulation of science for ideological ends', citing Climate Change as a tone setter for his moral objection to the overwhelming evidence supporting Injecting Centres;

http://bit.ly/fTMHt8

A key demand of the ACL who giveth and taketh Christian votes away is the rejection of immediate action to reduce emission related damage. With Malcolm Fraser's exit from the old Liberal Party we can see it for the Christian Conservatives For An Australian Theocracy Party, populated by anti-critical thinking, ideology driven gnats that it has finally become.

Extracted from the “Global Warmers Handbook.”

A temperature of 40 C or more in SE. Australia is proof positive of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

A Prolonged hard cold spell in covering the greater part of the Northern hemisphere is just a weather anomaly and can be safely ignored.