This article is by Tim Ball, a Doctor of Science and a climatology professor, and starts with the words “Global warming, as we think we know it, does not exist..”. An excellent starting point.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

The document to which you referred me is not a scientific document and is as misleading as the IPCC summary. No scientist relies on modelling for answers.

Good luck, David.

Follow the links and you'll find that Dr. Timothy F. Ball is the chair of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project, which attempts to counter the Kyoto Protocol and other sensible greenhouse gas reduction schemes via industry funded campaigns dressed up as a grassroots movement.

In other words, he gets paid a lot of money to write such articles. Part of that money is being used to sue a newspaper, a Canadian university and several honest people, who have questioned Tim Ball's qualifications. I found that out from wikipedia.

Tim Ball's article talks about "greatest deception in the history of science" and "there no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change". These words falsely imply that thousands of scientists are fabricating evidence. He says that in universities "academics remain silent" which is ridiculous and even more so when you consider the "screaming" that Mark Lawson claims goes on. It is just absurd.

Tim Ball says "The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law." I wonder how much he gets paid for putting out such nonsense.

Every climate sceptic has to lie, misinform, make personal attacks or general attacks against science or the scientific community. This is again proven by the Tim Ball article, as for every like article posted on OLO.

David, I hope that one day you will discover that bluster is a barrier to clear thinking.

You enjoy being led up the garden path, so I will leave you to it.

Forum have now given me back my original name, and I have lost Nick Lanelaw.

In my post above I criticised Mark Lawson because he provided no useful information and demonstrated bias in every sentence by using words like "screaming", "embarrassment", "bitterly", "gritted teeth", "absurd", "farce", "theatre" to attack scientists.

Nick/Leo thought I needed to read anr article from Tim Ball, who does what? Write articles attacking scientists.

It is right and proper to be appalled by these attacks, so how does Nick/Leo respond? say that I am being "led up the garden path"?

When informed about certain chemicals being toxic, am I being led up the garden path? And when looking at a falling star, when informed it is meteor at high speed contacting with the atmosphere, am I being led up the garden path? And perhaps when science informs about germs and viruses, invisible to the human eye, surely I am being led up the garden path.

If we discount science as a way of informing ourselves about the world, and make no mistake that this is what Mark, Tim and Leo are offering, just imagine the head-in-sand quackery they propose we follow.

Ah yes! The denialists are a desperate lot. Why don't they cease blathering on about climate change and look at the factual destruction of this planet from the anthropogenic chemical releases from pollutant industries?

Employ some real scientists to test Australia's waterways which are contaminated with lethal chemicals including dioxins. Have a read of the advice issued years ago, from the Scandanavian countries advising pregnant women and children under 8 not to eat the fish, heavily laced with mercury and other heavy metals.

Invite them to spend a "holiday" in the uncontrolled, unregulated, heavy industry communities of this nation and witness the pollution ingested by members and the devastation of their environment.

Consider the 4,000 beautiful birds (well that's what we know about) falling out of the skies in WA, dead from lead poisoning as a result of industry aligned regulators, all consumed with self-interest and greed under the guise of economic "stability".

Read about the contamination in these people's water tanks and soil and await the blood results of these residents. No doubt, the sceptics will say these results are tested through "modelling" manipulation.

Do these denialists dispute test results on cholesterol, blood pressure, cancers etc? If not, why not? They're denying the hard evidence from accredited laboratories on the toxic emissions responsible for the glaringly obvious destruction of our environment.

Most hydrocarbons are deemed carcinogenic or are suspected carcinogens. They are released to the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels. All burnt hydrocarbons convert to CO2.

These sceptics are yesterday's men with yesterday's mentality, desperate to deceive readers with their inane sophistry on matters of climate change, as an excuse to maintain the disgraceful status quo.

So whether climate change is anthropogenic or natural, it matters not. Privatising and polluting OUR fresh air is a crime against humanity and should be viewed as such by the members of all nations on this planet.

Model of David Latimer's thinking:

People are out to trick me --> Locate 'trick' through miscomprehension -->
Miss point --> Feel mislead --> People are out to trick me --> ... ... ...

This thinking has led to the following mistakes:

- Failure to comprehend that at no point have I suggested that Canberra was 'hotter before', the article itself stating that temperatures began to rise in the 70s;

- Failure to see that at no point have I disputed the BOM figures; he even displays the grandiosity to believe I thought he had compiled them;

- Failure to admit mistake in attributing personal motivation in the construction of what was, in fact, an unedited list of witnesses to the House of Lords committee.

That is where such thinking gets you. David loves to point out his 'golden rule', which is where his problems start. Here's a trend I've noticed: When David has gotten himself sufficiently lost up the garden path, he adopts the pronoun 'we' to gather an imaginary consensus, and then endeavours to summarise for all, but only by going back to his initial point of departure, not realising he has already strayed well off the track, and is no longer contributing anything of substance to the debate.