Rhetorically confused or perhaps confusingly rhetorical by the looks of it.

Must be nice knowing science without actually having to bother understanding any of it.

Blog on.

Rhetorical? Certainly. Confused? No, I'll leave that to you. But I AM interested in you explaining the science to me ...

When you attack the scientific basis and refuse to acknowledge the validity of it because you don't like the political policy decisions proposed to deal with it, yes I call that confused. Most of you are confused.

You can argue about the validity of the (political) policies all you like, I don't ever object to that. After all, we all want something that will work

Curmdgeon – you offer not a shred of evidence that science has not cogently and for good reason shown to be wrong.

Peter Mac – try reading science that has survived peer review instead of asking others to spoon feed you. I suggest a good start might be: http://skepticalscience.com It is informative and easy to read, even for non-scientists.

Bugsy - please point out where I have "attacked the science"? I suggested that the AGW case is based on theory, models and correlations and that "unchallenged proof" is needed to justify the enormous cost of CO2 emissions reduction.

A scientific process will develop and advance a theory, support this theory through observation (including correlations) and then model this to predict future outcomes.. However, the crucial element to healthy science is the process of challenging the theory and its support. I believe that this has not been done "properly" in the case of AGW theory.

Supporters point to "peer reviews" but I believe this is in many cases a lot of like-minded people agreeing with each other - this is not science.

Most opposition to the AGW concept has been called "denial" and opponents labelled with insults, which include: greed, in the pay of oil companies, don't understand science, etc. This is not science. (BTW – I am a mining engineer so you will probably disqualify me because I am obviously not capable of independent thought!)

AGW supporters tell us that "the majority of scientists agree" and “the science is settled”. This can be called democracy or consensus but it is not science.

You see, I am happy with the science. I understand the science. And my protests are in support of science. What I object to in this case is that what I believe to be incorrect conclusions have been drawn and presented as facts. This is not science.

This situation is not restricted to AGW but the difference with the AGW case is that the lunatics have been let out of the asylum. The world’s population cannot be expected to spend trillions based on a theory that is, in my opinion, unproven.

So exchanging views and opinions on blogs anonymously is all good fun. Using semantics to advance your argument is clever. Getting one over the other guy is satisfying. Using esoteric terms and imbedding links to articles that support your point of view is great. But do not ask me to fund your fantasy.

Agnostic - my request for an explanation of the science was sarcastic. I have read hundreds of papers from so-called climate scientists, AGW supporters and sceptics and have formed a considered opinion (as an engineer with post-graduate qualifications) that the AGW case is generally weak and certainly the science is not "settled".

But thanks for the link anyway - I'm always open to reading different information on the subject - you should try it sometime.

I love correlations. If I can dig it out, I will post a link where the global temperature measurements were plotted against the price of US postage stamps. I personnally plotted the average age of my immediate family and got a pretty good match - FYI, the plateau in global temperatures over the last decade is due to my elderly mother dying recently. You're right - it's not solar radiation after all.