csteele
in fact it is the global warmers that are the biblical fundamentalists. Not only does the global warming story have to be true, but all parts of it must be true. Thus you will find scientists bitterly defending the hocky stick years after Mann himself has altered it (see the IPCC 2007 report) to remove its main point, when their case would be stronger if they simply dropped the whole issue. The global warming story is also clearly on the decline. So maybe you could do with that subscription after all?

PeterA
no, there are no holes and myths. Its a talk so it doesn't have the references, but nothing in it is a suprise to anyone who has followed the debate. If you like pick a point which you think is a myth and I'll show you why it isn't..

cssteele,

had you had read Graham Young's Ambit Gambit 'Fish rot from the head Part 1' and 'Fish rot from the head Part 2: what is a conspiracy?' I don't think you'd have made the generalised assertions indicative of a belief in vast manipulative conspiracies... similar to the assertions of Professor Stephan Lewandowsky.

You've adopted positions similar to Lewandowsky and Graham shows them to be absurd and unsupported by Lewandowsky's own data.

But I bet you won't read it and I'd reckon even if you did you'd say Lewandowsky didn't have the same beliefs as you or that Graham is wrong or unscientific.

Wether the planet is warming dangerously or not is irrelevant, surely we want to decrease air pollution, if only for our health and that of the 'biosphere'? Reducing the poisons dumped into seas, waterways, on land and into the air should be a no-brainer.

ybgirp

Oh sure.. the problem is that the CO2 that the argument is about isn't a polutant as such - we generate it by the act of breathing - and there is no direct harm to plants, animals and the ecosystem if more of it happens to be in the atmosphere, up to a point(leaving aside the lunatic arguments on acid oceans). In any case reducing our generation of it in industry is proving to be inordinently expensive.

The pollutants you're thinking about - sulfur emissions, particulate matter, fertiliser in soil run off etc - are not really part of this debate. If that seems crazy to you, that's because it is.

Dear Curmudgeon,

Denying the physics of a doubling of the second most important green house gas is exactly like denying that light travelling from distant galaxies has taken billions rather than less than 10 thousand years to get here. Denying a record low Arctic ice coverage is exactly like denying the stratified fossil record. Denying the extent to which humans are contributing to CO2 levels in the atmosphere is exactly like denying that humans and apes have a common ancestor.

Now I'm more than happy to acknowledge my dear Curmudgeon that you are a little more 'Catholic' than 'born-again evangelist' without a firm commitment to a 'young earth', but you are certainly not about to deny the virgin birth.

All require a suspension of belief in the reality of physics. You will protest mightily but it is an inescapable divorce from the what the science tells us and just as the religious faithful see a devilish conspiracy and a fallen world you lot see a giant scientific and political conspiracy in a world where the scientists have solid the truth and their souls.

Same old same old.

Now that is not to say you guys are not doing very well in the debate. When you say “The global warming story is also clearly on the decline.” that is exactly what happened to the evolution story. In 1999 over 47% of Americans believed God created humans in their current form. It was the highest percentage for 30 years. The figures have yet to drop below 40% though and every one of them will reach for science to justify their position with things like 'flood geology' or Carbon dating limitations etc. Meanwhile evolution keeps on being factual, measurable, and the best answer for what we observe in the world today.

Tell me the difference between you and them.

Dear imajulianutter,

Happy for you to make the case and I will address it.

As to Prof (retired) Ollier Skeptical Science does a good job here of answering his rather dated and incorrect assertions.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Cliff-Ollier-Swimming-In-A-Sea-of-Misinformation.html

LOL Curmudgeon the paper you posted just shows you're ignorance. Learn the science man and you might understand what you posted. I will help you out in saying it doesn't say what you think it does, maybe you'll have to get another right wing website for your information the one you're using now is filling full of misinformation.