SPQR,

On the contrary, I read RObert's contribution with interest. One couldn't help but note his usual balanced delivery. I'm not sure I agree with the "extremists on both sides" line. I think there is a lot to lose by some if the present "system" of excess is altered in any way.
Our clever species has employed scientific method to improve its lot and address many challenges - and yet now it is rejecting the same science that has the impudence to tell it something it doesn't want to hear.

It would be appropriate, here, to remember the words of Hal Lewis, an accomplished scientist and long standing member of the American Physical Society, who when unable to have the APS withdraw a false statement supporting AGW, said in his letter of resignation, in respect of the corruption in science:

“It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.”

Nigel Calder says:” So many eminent folk from science, politics, industry, finance, the media and the arts have been taken in by man-made climate catastrophe. (In London, for example, from the Royal Society to the National Theatre.) Sadly for them, in the past ten years they’ve crowded with their warmist badges into a Hall of Shame, like bankers before the crash.”

Hopefully there will be more than a Hall of Shame for perpetrators like Al Gore and the IPCC. We need the equivalent of a Royal Commission in every country which has suffered from this fraud, and prosecutions of the corrupt perpetrators.

The Hall of Shame will obviously be packed, considering the widespread corruption necessary to support this fraud. Despite beanbag’s efforts, he might be squeezed out by force of numbers.

Corruption, fraud, conspiracy, hoax, scam, plot, shysters, con-artists, culprits, criminals, charlatans, idiots, perpetrators, beanbags, big fake froggy deniers ... people, you get the drift?

Words of a paranoid shill perhaps? Then again, who cares?

Re: Harold - see what these "fraudsters" say in response;

http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm

or the so called "beanbags’ policy"

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

And another octogenarian in Nigel (bless the dear old soul) Calder, who in 1980 predicted that within 20 years:

"The much-advertised heating of the earth by the man-made carbon-dioxide ‘greenhouse’ [will fail] to occur;
Instead, there will be renewed concern about cooling and an impending ice age".

I agree with the sad old chap in at least one respect – there ain’t going to be a climate catastrophe anytime soon – not even the “impending ice age”, not for thousands of years anyway.

Royal Commissions in every country, eh? ROFLMHO

The APS’s excuse for their dishonest behaviour:

“On the matter of global climate change, APS notes that virtually all reputable scientists agree with the following observations:

•Carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere due to human activity;
•Carbon dioxide is an excellent infrared absorber, and therefore, its increasing presence in the atmosphere contributes to global warming; and
•The dwell time of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is hundreds of years.”

They mean, of course, apart from the 32,000 scientists who signed the petition to the US Senate to delay any action on global warming. The petition stated:

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.”

The APS went on to say that “relatively few APS members conduct climate change research.”

Why then, did they feel impelled to make a statement on something that concerned few of their members, and why discount the observations of one of their senior and respected members who demonstrated extensive knowledge of the field?

They did not directly deny what Hal Lewis said about the science. They said that Lewis’ statement that the APS had anything to gain financially from the scam was untrue. Of course, Lewis made no such statement.

Nigel Calder is a respected and senior journalist, who has followed the global warming debate from its inception. His father is Lord Lawson, who also took a deep interest in, and is authoritive on science.

beanbag’s scurrilous sliming of honest competent people is unacceptable. If he has an explanation for the lack of science to support AGW, and for the dishonesty of the alarmists generally, and of the APS in particular, let him put it forward.

Incoherent rants, and reference back to already discredited statements simply underline his inability to give any honest scientific backing for the assertions he has made in support of the AGW fraud.

"Incoherent rants ... reference back to already discredited statements ... inability to give any honest scientific backing for assertions"

You are such a joke Leo - it is you who says Lord Lawson is Nigel Calder's father.

He is NOT. Nigel Calder is 80 years old this year.
Besides, Nigel Calder did not change his surname, even if you think he did.

Leo, in picking a fight with yourself (only seeing what you want to see) you miss;

>> there ain’t going to be a climate catastrophe anytime soon <<

I don't know which part of that statement you or your Oregon petitioner's don't understand Leo, but there are 100's of 1,000's of scientists all over the globe (members of various academies of sciences and scientific institutions) who also concur - catastrophic global warming ain't going to happen any time soon.

So the Peer who was Nigel Calder’s father is not Lord Lawson.. He was Lord Peter Ritchie Calder

You might explain, beanbag, how my using the wrong name for Nigel Calder’s father warrants any attention when it is irrelevant to the topic.

The topic is why you back the global warming fraud, without any scientific or factual evidence, and evade answering any reasonable question about it.

The main question at the moment, is why you continue to quote lies from previously reputable bodies like the APS, the Royal Society, and the countless politicised government bobies as if they are relevant to science.

They are relevant to fraud.

You are being asked for some science, which you persistently fail to supply, to back your false assertions in support of the AGW fraud.

Hal Lewis did not say that the APS profited from the AGW fraud, the non statement that the APS statement denied.

What he said was in relation to the President’s personal situation:

“Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise”

There was no denial of that statement, by the APS fraud backers.

They continue to ignore the science. Nigel Calder does not believe that the fraud can be sustained in the face of clear scientific evidence, from CERN, that the AGW assertion is dead in the water.

If he is wrong, then corruption trumps science.