Mr O apologises and then proceeds to decide what I do and don't know based on precisely nothing and then to ridicule me for views and knowledge that he has no way of discerning. Quite a man is Mr O.

Afterall, its only to be expected that Mr O would be obsessed with me given that I continually make him look so utterly foolish.

As to Socrates, I'm sure that he discerned that Athens was being overrun by the Mede based on his strolls around the agora. Or perhaps he was obsessed with the way the Boeotians were growing in number after he saw so many of them at Delium.

How about you put something up instead of denying everything to date. You do not see change or you do not see the cause, if you do see the cause you do not see the remedy, that is very hard to follow. This is why we have leaders I suspect. People that can agree on a same solution to combat the Climate change. To just say science is not settled is the squibs way out of doing nothing. Science is the best you are going to get. Models do not work, change is progressing to fast to keep up with.
Discussion has been going on for twenty years plus, and skeptics have not offered anything, Nature can only handle so much deviation, there is significant deviation to say the cause is:
Climate change is not caused by man. Suppose you give us your version of who or what is causing it, instead of pushing around the same lines for the past twenty years. Big oil was against any form of climate change, and now they go the other way, have they magically found something in their favor.
Co2 is a glaring cause of climate change no other single item is so noticeable. Future statistics do not exist yet.
Instead of continuously trying to blame it on something that does not exist and not progressing, your best shot is to blame Co2 for this predicament and get with consensus. Your alternative is to tell us what is the matter of eliminating unnatural emissions of Co2, which happens to be the most noticeable change in our atmosphere. Abbott’s alternative of CRAP is no help at all. You do not need an arts degree to see that.

Here's a 5-minute, down to earth, video on climate change from an unlikely source. No politics or emotional baggage.
https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/what-they-havent-told-you-about-climate-change#.Vc4sj_lViko

It explains the relevant facts. It should give pause for consideration for some of the true deniers posting here - the deniers of the relevant facts.

Mr Opinion, I suggest you reread what I actually wrote. Nothing I said could reasonably be taken to indicate I reckon Marx didn't make a substantial contribution to knowledge. FWIW I think he did. However his work was pervaded with misinformation as erroneous assumptions led to erroneous conclusions. When people accepted his work uncritically the results proved worse than useless.

I don't know enough about the work of Weber and Durkheim to supply any useful criticism. And AFAIK nobody even knows whether Socrates knew anything about statistics!

Do Arts degrees really ignore the importance of comparing theories with reality?

________________________________________________________________________________________

Jardine, I have always applied this to AGW. The data does fit the theory, and nearly everyone who understands statistics acknowledges that.

Why do you think satellite measurements show this planet is absorbing more electromagnetic radiation than it's emitting?

Your faulty assumptions with the political economy are really off topic here, but I will get around to discussing them soon. Meanwhile could you please at least try to understand the basics of the arguments you disagree with? For instance, the main principle of fiat currency is that taxation creates a demand for a currency because people require it to pay their taxes. That's NOT AT ALL like saying bank robbery is always needed to give a currency value; bank robbery doesn't decrease the amount of money in circulation, and nor does it create any obligation to use a currency (though ti makes it harder for bank to fulfil its existing obligations).

BTW supplying a link to a file on your own hard drive isn't much use to anyone!

579,

You said "if you do see the cause you do not see the remedy"

What to you believe is the remedy? This is an important questions, so I hope you''' give me a carefully considered answer.

From my perspective the main reason for skepticism is because the people who are advocating for 'action' cannot justify the 'actions' they are advocating. They seem unaware or not interested in the consequences of the actions they advocate for. This is not rational and not objective. To many people who do understand the risks of climate change and the advocated policies, the costs of the advocated policies greatly exceed the benefits. Given this, it is prudent to be skeptical and to question and thoroughly investigate everything that is relevant to justifying the implementation of the advocated policies. That is prudent, wise and any responsible government should do it. Policy analysis is not something climate scientists have any expertise in. It is not a role for climate scientists. They should stay right out of advocating for policies.

So, please answer my question as a first step.

The world is on course for the remedy, or the best remedy that can be ascertained. Get off fossil fuels. The worst part is going to be the twenty year delay since the problem was identified. The era of saying there is no problem or we can’t fix the problem has expired.
To argue about what is causing an obvious fault is unrealistic. Skeptics are continually changing the ways as why this is not happening.
At least we have one voice now to push forward and hopefully claw back some of the lost ground if it is not already past, the time for mending an aging problem.
Over the wasted time we have seen oceans getting warmer and ice melt increasing, which in turn is releasing more and more Co2 into an overloaded atmosphere. To reverse that may even be to late. We need to be around 1960 levels of Co2. Our atmosphere may never see those level’s of Co2 until all ice, permafrost and oceans have cooled, which could take hundreds of years without any major volcanic activity.
To dismiss fossil fuels as an irrelevant cause is a nonsense