Poirot,

<<At least those arguing on the side of moderation ...the key word there is "moderation">>

Moderation, you say?
How can this be called moderation?

"The deniers did not decide that climate change is a left-wing conspiracy by uncovering some covert socialist plot. They arrived at this analysis by taking a hard look at what it would take to lower global emissions as drastically and as rapidly as climate science demands. They have concluded that this can be done only by RADICALLY REORDERING OUR ECONOMIC AND POLITIC SYSTEMS in ways antithetical to their 'free market' belief system... HERE’S MY INCONVENIENT TRUTH: THEY ARE NOT WRONG”
[Naomi Klein]

"Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.
[Ottmar Edenhofer ( co-chair of the IPCC Working Group III)]

<<as opposed to totally dismissing the conclusions of climate scientists>>

Everyone agrees that climate changes. Sometimes it trends colder, sometime it trends warmer
The question is: is what we are seeing due to that *3%* of CO2 attributable to anthropogenic sources?

<<And the likes of Heartland have no political agenda?>>
The Heartland institute is one small voice in a crowd of rowdy well funded, well connected, well up-themselves AGW lobby groups.
Personally, I don’t think I’ve ever read or seen a Heartland publication.

<<Pull the other one>>

And here you have identified another characteristic of true AGW believers -- they seem to spend a lot or their spare time, pulling the other one.

Just to recap:

* world temperatures have risen by 0.7 degree in a century, and not really all that much over the last fifteen years - true ? false ?

* sea-level has risen around the world by up to six inches in a century - true ? false ?

* urbanisation - and the urban heat-island effect - have increased massively, perhaps ten times or more, in the last century, and many temperature-measuring stations are situated near what are now urban areas - true ? false ?

God, I'm such a boring, repetitive b@stard (Sorry to stick to the data, Poirot, empty abuse is so much more fun, isn't it? But when you've got nothing much to say, and no answers, abuse).

Cheers :)

Joe

Loudmouth,

Your dinky little sentences presuppose that climate scientists somehow neglect to include such data and considerations in their investigations and conclusions. You seem to think that with your minor knowledge on such things, it's all so very simple.

As for the urban heat island effect - are you claiming that scientists ignore this phenomenon - or TOB's or anything like that?

Please feel free to link to any instance where I have abused you on this thread. For example, I haven't referred to you as a blowfly or a nitwit or invited you to keep on barking.

Cheers.

SPQR,

By "moderation" I was referring to backing off from our rapacious use of resources and our wasteful lifestyles.

Poirot, I don't think I've called you a nitwit yet. But let's face it, you do not say anything, merely buzz around.

Yes, you're right, I certainly have little knowledge about any of this - that's why I keep asking questions, the same questions, because nobody answers.

What turned me into a 'sceptic', as you call it (which I always thought was a honorable stance for someone who respects science, but what do I know?) was reading about a weather station in the northen Antarctic, near South America, which originally was just a shed out in the snow and ice. But in the last thirty years, it has been joined by a nearby airfield, which is tarred and kept free of snow, absorbing heat nicely, and also is now surrounded by living quarters. Yet its readings were still being incorporated into the database. Of course, horrors ! it registered rising temperatures.

As long as I hear of such things, I hope I remain a sceptic. And a socialist.

And why does anyone think that the AGW scam and world government is solely a 'socialist' phenomenon - I always assume that it's a massive capitalist plot, to make a buck out of switching technologies, and to move towards a more fascist-controlled world, dominated by neo-capitalism. It all seems pretty obvious to me. Of course, if all of this IS a socialist plot, then I'll kiss that good-bye, quick-smart.

To get back to the AGW scam, Poirot: if you wish to assert, you must prove. Good luck.

Cheers :)

Joe

Loudmouth,

"...the AGW scam..."

Ho, ho - if you're a true skeptic (as opposed to a "skeptic"), then I'm really Hercule Poirot.

Cheers : )

It seems PriceWaterhouseCoopers has weighed in on this discussion: they are in no doubt that anthropogenic climate change will be both a phsyical and an economic catastrophe. http://t.co/NxiVkBdF

For those who consider AGW is correct and that fossil fuels should be replaced with cleaner technologies, should they prove wrong the world loses only a source of pollution but gains new industries and jobs. They are pro-growth. Most industries and governments now share this view.

Those who relentlessly deny AGW and oppose any form of action are evidently willing to gamble with the lives of their grandchildren, the future civilisation and the global economy. If they are wrong, billions of people will suffer.

There is no obligation for society to pay any heed whatsoever to the opinions of people so callous and devoid of humanity