CatMack is confused.

Balance does not mean that we have to discount empirical observation when discussing the quasi religious zealotry of warmist theory.

Carbon Dioxide does accelerate plant growth and is beneficial for food production. For the past 16 years additional atmospheric CO2 has not been accompanied by an increase in atmosphere temperature.

Proportionality would, in fact, justify far more space for skeptics as polls suggest that they greatly outnumber followers of the warmist cult. But one well informed skeptic with unassailable evidence will always trump a consensus of the ignorant.

Professor Aitkins' comments illustrate the power of the skeptic perspective in this contest.

Hi Daffy,

I followed your link and was disturbed to see some of the stuff upon which you seem to rely.

The first thing to leap out was the expression “overwhelming consensus”. This is pure hype because there can be no such thing. The expression “Overwhelming Consensus” is strictly speaking a redundant expression since a consensus is by definition a general agreement. Great for getting people like you excited though.

Consensus was developed by the Quakers originally, but similar principles have been used since pre-history.

Interestingly, every definition makes it very clear that consensus has absolutely nothing to do with facts, data, research, or reality. It is simply an expression of group solidarity, belief, sentiment, general agreement, opinion and feelings.

“group solidarity of belief or sentiment”, “general agreement or accord”, “general or widespread agreement (esp in the phrase consensus of opinion”, “agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole” and “the feelings of most people”.

If the cornerstone of your belief system is based upon consensus you’ve been had in a very big way. This could be because you don’t understand English; you do not believe the widely published text book definitions or you just can’t be bothered to look it up.

The UN’s application of Agenda 21 has been a long road. The decision making based upon consensus has this to say;

“Since unanimity may be difficult to achieve, especially in large groups, unanimity may be the result of coercion, fear, undue persuasive power or eloquence, inability to comprehend alternatives”.

There you have it, not my words, officially you are the victim of a fear campaign and you are unable to comprehend alternatives. But we deniers have always known this.

Daffy, you had better read this again just to make sure you understand these official definitions.

I note the "It's not bad" myth is number three on the Skeptical Science top ten.

http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-advanced.htm

Peter Lang,

Here's some news on one "skeptic" and his antics at Doha:

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/12/06/monckton-banned-un-climate-process-offensive-stunt

(Don't forget to click on the video :)

Hi CatMack, I have just done a quick check and for the articles listed on the most recent page of http://onlineopinion.com.au/section.asp?name=environment, which is our environment section, there are 7 articles to do with global warming and only 2 are skeptical. If we're running a campaign then it is the other way, and I'd better balance it up.

Of course you get skeptical articles here because OLO isn't left-wing, or right-wing. It has an enlightenment view of life that only through the clash of ideas can truth emerge.

Finally, someone who as least concedes that additional atmospheric Co2, is accompanied by a greening planet!
It's called the greenhouse effect!
This is why Co2 is referred to as a greenhouse gas!
And yes, there is an increase in rainforest species at the top end.
Someone finally realised they are not fire tolerant and stopped tying to burn them.
Moreover, tropical rainforest, in large enough lumps creates its own micro climate rain events and recharges monsoonal rains.
If we simply were to allow these tropical rainforests to spread southward, the monsoons would also spread further and further south.
[To the benefit of all Australians,all of who, live on the driest inhabited continent in the world.]
However, plants are by and large somewhat similar to humans?
Increase their temperature, such as would occur in a greenhouse, and they compensate, by giving off more moisture!
This is also called the greenhouse effect.
And the additional atmosphere moisture traps more radiant heat, given atmospheric moisture is a most effective thermal blanket.
And sometimes the difference between a relatively mild overcast night and a freezing cold starry one, that freezes the water in the pipes, even at subtropical latitudes!
Satellite surveys, over two decades, have demonstrated beyond doubt, that the ice is melting at an alarming rate; and the glaciers are retreating at an increasingly rapid rate.
And yes, it's not a constant, but the overall trend line is.
As the ice melts less radiant heat is reflected back into space; and instead, is absorbed!
Adding to and accelerating the greenhouse effect.
A mad Nero fiddled while Rome burned?
It's not a good example to follow, especially when we can employ the precautionary principle, in a way that expands opportunity, wealth and job creating, endlessly sustainable economic growth/poverty reduction.
That's the only up side and where we, all of us, ought to be focusing our intellectual skills and erudite acumen.
Obtuse obfuscation serves nobody!
Rhrosty.

CatMack
Online Opinion has always run articles handed to it - there's never been any other agenda. Its one of the few sites in Australia where there is a genuinely mixed debate. The problem you have is that some of those articles are skeptical and so you don't agree with them.

Daffy Duck
Come now, that is over the top conspiracy stuff even from you. One of the major problems in this debate is the obvious disparity in funding between the two sides, with the all the funds flowing to the global warming side and the skeptics getting peanuts. The obvious source of funds would be the energy companies, but apart from routine donations to various think tanks and the like ($200,000 here, $100,000 there) which they've always done, they haven't bothered with the debate at all. But then we've been in a resources boom for most of the debate period.. the coal companies have had more business than they can handle and oil prices are through the roof. They haven't needed to bother at all.

The fact that the under funded skeptics have made such inroads into the work of very well funded global warming scientists tells us something about the underlying worth of the theory.