Michael Kile puts all his faith in one climate denier/sceptic (Laframboise) who argues that science and activism should not be mixed. It's only partly true. Scientists should advise on policy but not determine it themselves. Nevertheless, not to speak out on an issue that is set to destroy the world as we know it is profoundly irresponsible. Well done, James Hansen, is all I can say for speaking out. As for the kids and their activism on climate change, good on them. Climate change will affect their future profoundly and it is is very much in their interests that we keep global warming to less than two degrees.
It's a pity about Michael Kile. So very good on population and so disappointing on climate change. Read some science papers Michael and get off this ideological bandwagon that is wrecking your reputation.

Required reading is the original Children's Crusade. Bunch of unsophisticated kids encouraged to band together to right a wrong but all the way exploited enslaved or killed by the people who encouraged them.

When Gore and Hansen give up some of their riches for this cause as opposed to making more! What am I saying, this is the whole point of this madness

In a recent article in The Australian on the search for the Higgs boson particle a scientist is quoted thus - "...the new results have a higher dgree of certainty - 99 percent - but still fall well below the threshhold of discovery. For scientists, certainty requires a threshold of a no greater than five in ten million chance of error. ..."

If only our climate "scientists" applied the same amount of rigour to their results we might have a lot less hysteria.

Was Galileo a scientist or an activist?
Darwin, scientist or activist?
Watson and Crick, scientists or activists?
Science inevitably and invariably changes we way we think in very fundamental ways; about life, about existence, about the Universe and about ourselves.
It has always struck me that the most strident opponents of AGW are right wing libertarians. It has also struck me that such libertarians almost always not sociologists, or psychologists or philosophers or anthropologists... They are invariably economists.
How many economists would favour burning up capital, rather than accrued interest?

Grim

How many right wing libertarians does it take to change a light bulb?

None.

The bulb does not need changing, it would cost too much and everything is fine without change.

Real Red Guards stuff. Young people brainwashed by relentless fascist propaganda to think they have a high mission to destroy the lives and liberties of large numbers of innocent people.

Of course to declare their independence from fossil fuels, there’s no need to urge government to do anything. All they’ve got to do is stop using fossil fuels.

“Was Galileo a scientist or an activist?
Darwin, scientist or activist?
Watson and Crick…?”

Well they weren’t actively and publicly agitating for government to campaign on policy, were they?

And they certainly didn’t fail to get the evidence to support their theories, secretly concede their critics’ points and admit it’s a travesty their own theories are unsupported by the evidence, while publicly declaring the science is settled and their critics are "ideologues", did they?

“Science inevitably and invariably changes we way we think in very fundamental ways; about life, about existence, about the Universe and about ourselves.”

Yes but that doesn’t resolve the issues, because the problem is that the pronouncements of the major government-funded institutions are unsupported by the *actual science*. That's why no warmists in here has EVER been able to defend their position on the science, but only lapse into silence on my three unanswered challenges.

“It has always struck me that the most strident opponents of AGW are right wing libertarians... invariably economists.”

If their criticisms are sound, it doesn’t matter who they are.

Besides which, economics is about when we face choices because of the scarcity of resources. AGW policy is an attempt - admittedly ignorant, confused and corrupt - to solve economic problems - supposedly not enough earth. The least you should do is *understand* how economics disproves their case IRREFUTABLY.

“How many economists would favour burning up capital, rather than accrued interest?”

Good point. But that doesn’t mean that AGW policy action represents the conservation, rather than the massive destruction of capital. That's what's in issue, and it's precisely on that point that the warmists have been irrefutably disproved.