cohenite: so that explains it, you only have half a brain.

the defenders of the simple tennets of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ have never had to change its beliefs (ie sinful man, the need of a Saviour and judgement to come). These simple facts are obvious to anyone seeking any sort of truth. The defenders of the gw faith and the money trail keeps changing. To claim science to back their belief is as dumbs claiming that the 'big bang' explains beginnings. The arrogance of the believers of gw are equalivalent to the Catholic church's claims to be the true church. Both live in fantasy.

For a recent balanced discussion on climate change it is useful to listen to Professor Kevin Anderson's Cabot lecture at Bristol University on 6 November 2012. It can be accessed at www.indymedia.org.uk/media/2012/11/502497.mp3.

He cites the International Energy Agency as saying in a very recent report that the earth is on track for a 4C increase in temperature by the middle of the century. Another well-known leftwing organisation, Price Waterhouse Coopers put out as report in November 2012 saying we are on track for a 6C by the end of the century.

The thrust of Professor Anderson's paper is that level of temperature increase is the overwhelming consensus of the scientific world. That rate of change is unprecedented in the geological record. A major contributing factor is human behaviour and more specifically the pattern of energy consumption of a small percentage of people in the mostly developed world.

Realistically we as a species are unlikely to change our behaviour to a sufficient degree in a sufficiently short space of time to actually modify or ameliorate that predicted degree of climate change. As Unger says, "at every level the greatest obstacle to transforming the world is that we lack the clarity and the imagination to conceive that it could be different."

It is not really a question of "belief" because the science should provide us with a sufficient degree of certainty to enable the rejection of clearly untenable hypotheses. That is not to reject the possibility of an alternative result. But unless and until we base our "belief" system on that which is scientifically coherent the climate change debate is as futile as talking to flat earthers, believers in angels, or proponents of the magic bullet.

“Now while it is true, as one of my sons likes to point out to me, that we all believe in lots of things that we don't examine at all closely, like the arrival of dawn early tomorrow, ……….”

The limits to inductive knowledge have been examined by Philosophers from David Hume onwards. OK it is not certain in an absolute sense that dawn will arrive tomorrow, but I bet it will- unless cloud obscures the sunrise. Absolute certainty is not given to mankind, yet I challenge any reader to found an exception to the second law of thermodynamics.

But what do people mean by climate change? Will Perth become subtropical or temperate instead of Mediterranean? I think not. Does it mean changing weather patterns? This could undoubtedly be subject to empirical analysis. Although I fear both start and end dates as well as which weather phenomena are subject to study would be arbitrary.

I understood global warming as a prediction of x rise in temperature by some arbitrarily fixed date. This in theory is open to empirical verification, always assuming that there is agreement on methodology of measurement.

"Hypocrisy"; you're hopeless Poirot; Agronomist misintepreted the relative purpose of Chow and Wald tests as I explained to him in the last post on your thread; you seem to think that because a pro-AGW 'scientist' declares something then it is true; that is why you are a believer and have nothing to add to this 'debate' other then your ego and sensibilities.

LePage: pathetic.

James O'Neil; PWH are just another corp lining up at the trough to get their share of government largess; you say this:

"That rate of change is unprecedented in the geological record"

The Holocene clearly shows temperatures greater than today and increases greater than today:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/hologisp2.png

The modern era has been spliced on.

That graph is from the GISP2 ice cores and is as reliable as geological records can be.

The criticism of using the MOST relibale no-instrumental record for past temperatures is that it is localised in the Northern ice areas of Greenland [see SkS] and is not a fair global representation.

This is grossly misleading because GISP and other ice cores, along with tree rings, are the MAIN evidence used by pro-AGW scientists to prove AGW; here we have evidence from the same source which contradicts AGW and then the excuse is Greenland was local. No it is not; if Greenland is warmer than the rest of the world was warmer too.

There is another complaint about GISP2 from NOAA but I'll let the Madding Crowd of alarmists present that

I don't have to “believe” I'm going to have an accident in order to see the wisdom of having some form of insurance.
When I see someone deliberately inhaling noxious fumes, I don't really need to read reams of papers on lung cancer to think it probably isn't a good idea.
When I drive towards the 'Big Smoke' and see that lovely purple haze hanging over the city, I don't need to be a “Climate doomsayer” to think I'd be better off staying out of there.
What's so wonderful about atmospheric pollution that it's worth fighting to keep?
The Human Race (or the affluent parts, at least) is currently indulging in a planet wide experiment.
We're taking fossil fuels that have been buried for millions of years (or maybe 5 thousand, if Runner's right) and turning it into 23 billion tonnes of CO2 -as well as particulates, more noxious- every year, while at the same time we are cutting down trees at the rate of 32 hundred acres every single hour, 24 hours a day.

This would be a fascinating experiment, if it could be contained in a single building -which we didn't need to live in.
To conduct such an experiment on the only biosphere we have is sheer bloody madness.
“Hey, here's a plan! Let's shut all the doors and windows, and start a fire and see what happens?”
You'd have to be stoned, wouldn't you?