It's fascinating to have observed on this thread how the denialists are increasingly shifting their arguments, to the point of clutching at ever flimsier straws. Seems that some people don't know the meaning of

(a) consensus (hint: it's not the same thing as unanimity)
(b) scientific peer review (hint: as suggested above, it's not a committee meeting).

One wonders why some (e.g. OLO's chief editor) who have otherwise demonstrated their intelligence and rationality in this forum have compromised their credibility so much about this issue. If it's not for political reasons, what then? Chagrine at not being nominated for 'best blog'?

As Tim Lambert implies above, this does nothing to enhance this forum's credibility.

Bolt's a nong whether he's on holidays or not, Sniggid. Catch him on "The Insiders" sometime and you'll see what I mean.

Hmm... about 40 posts back I asked if anyone could give me a decent reason as to why so many scientists would support the science behind global warming. What's in it for them as opposed to the denialists.

As yet, nobody seems to have a practical answer.
This is at the very heart of the matter, and it would appear nobody can offer an adequate response.

I for one, believe that says one hell of a lot.

TRTL “if anyone could give me a decent reason as to why so many scientists would support the science behind global warming.”

I will have a go TRTL

Maybe some of these scientists live in pursuit of the public purse.

Step 1 create an apparent pressing need by deploying alarmist propaganda.

Step 2 float nebulous strategies and ideas for which a suitably terrified populous will pay someone to research a solution.

Step3 apply for funding

Step 4 Spend the money

Step 5 Publish and accept the acclaim, maybe get a patent or two out of the public funded research to retire on.

Whether the problem was real in the first place does not matter whatever, so long as someone can plot a nebulous benefit, in fact it makes life easier if it was all a myth.

The advantage, once one has the money is it is almost impossible to be proved wrong. The politically correct view will ensure those who gave the grants will do their utmost to ensure poor grant applications with zero outcomes are never discovered (such is the nature of bureaucrats who spend tax payers funds and the people who seek them).

All the global warming scenarios are so subjective and dependent upon so many independent variables that isolating what is due to man and what can be influenced by government amounts to pure guess work.

I see NZ have drawn back from taxing their farmers for cow farts, I think I can understand why.

In the mean time the economy goes to hell in a hand basket because the cost burden of suggested remedies, which were not needed or produced only marginal environmental benefit at best, has killed the economic viability of investment in both existing developments and new processes.

Or maybe I am just a skeptic.

I tend to think that there is more money floating around the academia for those who support the AGW theory than there is for those few brave souls who are willing to put their heads up above the parapets and say hang on a minute...
Go here http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/12/2006-bad-year-for-climate-fearmongers.html for a large selection of links that point out the nonsense of the global warming panic.

I seem to remember that when Tim Lambert originally posted this item that I wrote a long response in the comments attacking conclusions he came to about Andrew Bolt's claims It seems to have vanished from the comments thread there...
In any event I wonder why this post even qualifies as a "best blog post of 2006" the writing is nothing flash. Where are the posts that are even vaguely conservative on this topic or any other? Nowhere to be seen.

Fester, I will spell it out again for you. My scepticism is in respect of the scale and extremity of the projections being made on AGW. I have never doubted that some anthropogenic impact on climate is or may take place. I have zero respect for people who continually attempt to align AGW with motherhood with a view to obtaining a blank cheque for every untested whimsy. That is, zero respect for the Al Gores and Tim Lamberts of this world.