Bonmot - yes indeed I got onto the site you linked to because someone tried to refute a point I had made elsewhere on what I must say is the slimmest of pretexts.

I also must say those guys are far more irrational and much nastier than the posters on this site. I know that Graham (the editor in chief here) will boot people off the site, suspend them, if they become overtly abusive. Doesn't happen at all on that site.

As for the report today, I exchanged emails with Will Stephen a couple of years back. I regret I have no great opinion of him. Virtually all of the supposed proof of climate change, as you know, relates to the fact that global climate temperatures are now high. The real problem has always been showing that the high temperatues are the result of emissions or a natural cycle.

They still haven't got over that hurdle, and today's report hasn't changed that. But then we can't say for sure that it is a natural cycle.

Bonmot writes

'It's dispicable that the Plimers, Pells, Bolts and Abbotts of the country are willing to sell our planet's future in order to fulfill their own personal ideologies, profits, and ambitions.'

And Flannery, Gore, Gillard are all pure at heart who are Saviours of our planet. How gullible can one be?

This article reminds me that, according to some, there is still only one side of this discussion and, while religious leaders with little scientific knowledge who are pro-climate change are praised, those with a similar amount of knowledge who are against are seen as foolish, right wing propagandists.

The author also makes the patently ludicrous statement, that CO2 is a pollutant. This statement is backed by a link to a single interview on an ABC Science Show which does not support the claim at all but 'postulates' that increased CO2 'may' affect chemical composition of plant life.

I call on him to retract this statement or admit that life on planet Earth is dependent upon pollution for its survival.

The idea that CO2 is a pollutant has been explained, repeatedly, so that Atman should by now understand. Once again: a pollutant may be defined as something which pollutes. Put a little water or sugar in your petrol tank, and they will pollute your fuel with undesirable effects. Is water a pollutant? Or sugar? Yes, if they are functioning as a pollutant. Is atmospheric CO2 a pollutant? Yes, if it is functioning as a pollutant; that is, if it is in the atmosphere at more than "natural" proportions, such that it has an undesirable effect.

I don't think you 'pollute' your petrol tank by overfilling it. Nor do I 'pollute' my coffee by putting too much sugar in it. How many of us have made 2 stroke and 'polluted' it by too much oil?
Whilst technically you may be able to use the term in a broad sense, the English language has much more accurate words.
If the argument was sound, it wouldn't require such a delicate dance around the terminology use. You're arguing on a wafer thin premise.

Mark, I don't buy it. You were caught out and could not defend your stance - simple as.

While it is easy to opine to the lay-people on OLO, it is much harder to opine to people who clearly know more about the science than you do. Sure, some get a bit snarky, for good reason - but they are not irrational as you assert, and that is all it is.

Anyway, I applaud you for trying to mount a case - most so called OLO 'sceptics' would not be able to.

I agree, Graham Young has set a high standard for ameniable discourse on OLO - he is to be congratulated. However, that does not mean people can distort, misrepresent and make stuff up as they see fit.

Mark, I understand much about what you have to say about alternative energy sources, and I would mostly agree. However, when it comes to the science of climate change, I would put you in the same camp as our beloved Cardinal - unlike his boss.

As runner so aptly demonstrated, it's not about the science anymore - it's about political and religious beliefs.