SpinDoc, you say:

"Michael Kile’s article is about frightening children with doom stories and indoctrination by the warmertariat. Sadly you seem to have diverted this thread by doing what you do best, proselytize the warmertariat mantra and not going anywhere near the real issues presented.

You seem oblivious to the fact that the debate has moved on, you are still fighting the link wars and trotting out your favorite adopted opinions. We know what, we know who and we know when. This debate is now about how and the victims. This is what Michael is addressing."

Spindoc, do have a read of Mr Kile's article in Quadrant, where he says:

"Human sacrifice is clearly a potent forcing agent in climate equilibration. Furthermore, analysis of the climate record suggests its decline has been a key driver of rising global temperatures. The Aztec (and other) priests were right. Only sacrifice will ensure humankind’s survival."

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/6/the-aztec-solution

Mr Kile's article describes the mechanics of climate control, as practiced (intentionally or not) by the Aztecs at the time of the Conquistador invasion of Mexico.

Now there's something to frighten the kiddies with:
Shaddup or we'll cut out your heart and throw you down the temple stairs, to cool the climate a bit.

SpinDoc, I guess that's no reason you shouldn't defend Mr Kile, strictly on principle. After all, why shouldn't each and every one of us deserve the best defence available, no matter what our ideas? Good on you for fighting the good fight.

But I do wonder: Is Mr Kile barking mad, or just another clever satirist?

To stop black carbon is going to be a task, all by itself. That is what is speeding up ice sheet melt, and gaining pace. Convert diesel to gas, maybe, or come up with a synthetic fuel oil that does not create soot. What ever it is steps are going to happen, or sea level rise will create more expenditure.
Parts of Africa is again in the desperation of drought, without infrastructure, the scene is not going to be good. They are in need and half the world is broke. Can we go on feeding people in impoverished countries, or put an end to the miseries. With out internal help, like birth control, the situation is reoccurring. The world has big decisions to make.

579; your doomsday utterances typify the way AGW is promoted; hysterically; carbon, soot or aerosols and their effect on the atmosphere and climate are simply not known; the planned satellite to measure the forcing from aerosols was lost in take-off and currently all we are left with are articles such as this which argue that aerosols COOL not warm the atmosphere:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=stratospheric-pollution-helps-slow-global-warming

Here's a thought: things have never been better and those who worry about the end of the world are perceiving things through their personal disposition rather than dealing with reality.

Have a drink and stop worrying.

579,

The so called 'lead pencils' contain no lead at all and never have. Do not accept my word for it, simply google for lead pencil and read a few of the articles.
A pencil 'lead' is made up of a mixture of finely ground clay and finely ground graphite (which is a form of carbon just as diamond is). The difference between a 'Hard'(H) and a 'soft' (B) pencil is that soft pencils have a greater percentage of graphite; hard have more clay.
You seem to think that carbon is a result of burning fossil fuels. That is essentially wrong though in a badly adjusted motor there is some black emmission due to the fact that the fuel is not being completely burnt. The result of burning fossil fuels is the production of carbon dioxide and water because fuels are hydrocarbons.

Cheers,

Grim
“And now to Peter Hume. Only someone suffering from egregious narcissistic personality disorder…”

Wow, we are amazed at this latest warmist proof that the globe faces man-made global warming.

* * *

Now Grim, I have many times accused you of circular argument, so I hope you won’t think it narcissistic of me to congratulate you on not having indulged that dreadful vice even once in your last post. For the first time I can remember you doing, your logic is valid, you have addressed relevant facts, and you have truly joined issue on my actual argument, instead of our usual method of just endlessly assuming you are right, and misrepresenting me. You have actually and validly tried to prove your case. Bravo, and keep up the good work.

However your logic, though valid, is unsound and you have only proved my case, not yours, for the following reasons.

“Yet …. we are asked to believe … that burning something is actually cheaper than burning nothing. How …? Basically, by comparing apples to oranges. …we are asked to accept the accounting (historical or out of pocket) cost of fossil fuels, and the economic (total) cost of renewables…
To make a true comparison, we must either compare the out of pocket costs of both … or compare the full economic cost of both.”

Completely agree.

“But what about the decades and decades of past government intervention, distorting market prices so egregiously that it does indeed appear that burning something is actually cheaper than burning nothing?”

Bad. They should never have been done and should be abolished immediately. For example, where I live, it’s cheaper to buy coal-fired electricity only because of the historical subsidies in the absence of which, probably solar or other alternative energies would have been installed decades ago.

Without the past century’s embezzlement of trillions in compulsory support for power stations, alternative energy sources would now be much more economical, widespread and mainstream, precisely because they are more economical when *all* relevant factors are taken into account.

(cont.)

“Consider the trillions spent on the violent acquisition (sorry, 'liberation') of foreign oil fields…”

Good point. Making petrol cheaper by blowing up Iraqis falsifies economic calculation as a guide to which form of energy is better, falsely making petrol seem more economical than wind, solar etc.

But that doesn’t prove that we face man-made global warming. Nor does it reduce the usefulness of economic calculation to figure out which energy source is more efficient, so far as the relevant goods are exchanged against money (e.g. fossil fuels versus wind turbines).

And where economic calculation is impossible because the relevant goods are not exchanged against money (eg killing the owners of oil instead of buying it; or wind energy available for free; or public ownership of power stations), that doesn’t prove that coercive interventions are ethically better, nor technically better at identifying efficient energy sources, than people identifying them by voluntary choice and/or economic calculation.

You cannot allege the killing of innocent Iraqis as a benefit trumping economic calculation. The social injustice, and economic and environmental chaos, of past coercive interventions does not justify massive more coercive interventions, but a lot less!

All warmists contradict themselves in arguing that policy action on AGW is necessary or desirable, because the premise of that argument is that governments’ attempt last century to merely supply electricity was the worst mistake in the history of the world.

How could you possibly argue on the basis of that gross government failure, that government is now qualified for the larger challenge of managing the whole world’s energy, climate and economy hundreds of years into the future? It’s absurd; laughable; criminal.

The allegation that government was necessary to produce electricity on public goods grounds was false; AND EXACTLY THE SAME REASONS FALSIFY ALL PUBLIC GOODS ARGUMENTS WHATSOEVER.

“…should the study of science deny the scientist the fundamental right to freedom of speech?”

Hurray! Grim discovers the value of freedom. *Before* that, ask, should the study of science deny to others the fundamental right to freedom not to be forced to fund it if they don’t want to?