nicco .. no, not from scientific pages, from your own posts and opinion articles .. you guys rant this stuff over and over, but then for some reason think you are posting scientific facts .. you're not.

I don't read blogs or tabloids, should I? I actually have a different interest area in my spare time, but every so often cruise back past here to watch you guys losing control

it's just angry blather against people who disagree.

With all the funding the alarmists get, with the government funding a propaganda committee to travel the country, the PM herself hosts special educational dinners, you should be winning hands down, but the fact is the alarmists are going backwards. The grants are all to alarmists in climate science there is overwhelming support and funding, why have you not completely nailed the science so there is no skepticism or question at all .. after all these years you still can't put it to bed.

The problem is, right now, climate science is immature and has a lot to learn, I know you all think there is nothing to learn and you know it all .. based on your democratic understanding of science and propaganda/financial bias, but you're wrong .. climate science, is a long way from understanding climate enough to bet on.

Why is it you all have such different angles and you all Google different data .. why is there not a single set of absolute knowledge for the understanding of climate?

I don't need science to show that, and you guys rarely resort to consistent science anyway, you all try to pick your on favorite winners, anyway. You just Google the odd bit here and there to try to win points.. I just reflect your own poison back at you .. and you don't even recognize it, you're in such a lather.

You've lost the debate, and don't like it, sure it's taking time to wind down, you're own hysteria shows that.

It works both ways Mark ... you throw muck around yourself. Thing is, you don't recognise it.

Very destructive dialogue rpg, well done.

In the era of the internet it's virtually impossible to sustain something like Climatism, let alone continue to enforce political correctness.
Climatism is anything but a grass roots movement it's top down, statist and imperial in many of it's aspects,it'd be done and dusted if not for pesky annoyances like universal suffrage and high levels of literacy among what passes for a proletariat in 21st century "Western' countries.

Apart from anything else, much to the chagrin of the bourgeois Climatists you have untrained people entering the debate, that is to say people who have not been indoctrinated or made susceptible (read gullible) by a university education.

rpg once again demonstrates that he has (a) no manners and (b) no understanding of how science operates, and apparently no intention of finding out.

Don Aitken, please re-read the article about insurance. You will find that it is about climate, not weather, thougn some weather events are mentioned. It is summed up by Andrew Torrance, CEO of Allianz Insurance, who says: "As the global climate continues to warm, we have to find new ways to protect people and economies from the impacts of extreme weather, particularly those who are most vulnerable." The insurers, who indeed will sell you policies to insure against local storms, floods and so on, have recognised at an international level that they need to take account of climate change, that it is a real phenomenon which needs to be factored into their calculations.

Like the scientifically-challenged rpg, you (Aitkin) are ignoring the element of probability. The science says, in effect, that there will very probably be a rise in global temperatures, which very probably will have very unwelcome consequences. (I don't need to spell them out, but they are not fanciful.) You have sufficient confidence in your own assessment of the science to dismiss the work of climatologists around the world. But you offer no reason for anyone to believe that you have superior information, just your bland assurance that all is well.

Incidentally, it's easy enough to poke fun at the idea of asteroid collisions - "do you want us to act now to prevent that collision?" says Aitkin, suggesting that it's something out of our reach. Well, firstly, it differs from climate change in that no human activity has influence on asteroid behaviour (unlike climate); and secondly we are doing something about it, namely trying to understand the possibility, even if it is out of our reach. The Hubble telescope is part of that interesting endevour. See:
D. Bodewits, M. S. Kelley, J.-Y. Li, W. B. Landsman, S. Besse and M. F. A’Hearn. Collisional Excavation of Asteroid (596) Scheila. Astrophysical Journal Letters, 2011; DOI: 10.1088/2041-8205/733/1/L3