I have seen some moronic analogies in my time but davsabs little effort to compare the simplicity and comparative certainty of a biopsy with the assumption ladden speculation of the climate muddlers would have to take the cake.

Its ready acceptance by the rest of the climate cretins betrays a fundamental incapacity to distinguish between fact and opinion, between observable phenomena and outright speculation.

For the record, 98% of IT experts were absolutely convinced of the certainty of Y2K. Sceptics were defamed as luddites. But the silence on the 1st January 2000 was deafening. And clowns even had the gall to claim that the disaster did not take place because of all the millions spent (on them) to fix the "problem". This was a plausible explanation to the bimboscenti but the surprising thing was that not one of those numerous very dated PCs that still manage to crank along in all sorts of forgotten back rooms without Y2K patches was effected by the bug.

Now what was that you said about 98% of experts must be right? Not if there is much more funding in the bull$hit business.

And ChrisC trots out all the standard mantras once again. (yawn).

"The really disgusting things is that they do it to sell a book or earn themelves a name - even a bad name as history will probably show" - Leigh

Interesting comment. I take it to mean you disapprove of activities that are solely to make a profit or for seeking fame?

If so, then how do you view activities that pollute and/or destroy the environment in order to make millions of dollars? To me, THAT is a truly disgusting thing.

Oh, of course - I forgot. It's all in the name of that almighty deity, The Economy. And climate skeptics have the hide to accuse greenies et al. of having religious zeal??

Onya Perseus, nice of you to prove Snake right with your content-free and insulting attack on Davsabs & ChrisC.

Less than 200 of your words gave us 'moronic', 'cretins' 'bulls**t' and 'bimboscenti', but no relevant information or links - are you Alan Jones or Andrew Bolt

Snake: "In fact the lack of grammar and spelling coupled with conspiritorial reasons advanced, promoted a sad lack of education..."

The word is 'conspiratorial'.

ChrisC,

couple of comments:

1, Because something doesn't follow, logically or scientifically, doesn't make it wrong or right.

2, It's hard to imagine a model not taking the past into account in it's construction thereby conforming to the trends.

As to clouds,
"The potential complexity of the response of clouds to climate change was identified in the SAR as a major source of uncertainty for climate models. Although there has been clear progress in the physical content of the models, clouds remain a dominant source of uncertainty" (IPCC)

3, Mars atmosphere has a CO2 concentration nearly 25 times earths despite there being only 1% of the earths atmosphere in total. Yet Mars temperature is said to be only 5deg warmer due to Greenhouse effect.Interestingly the oft quoted Venus temp(500 deg) due to CO2 fails to acknowledge the fact that the CO2 concentration is about 170 000 times that of earth. If my interpretation of the below links is correct .

http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~soper/Mars/atmosphere.html
http://www.nineplanets.org/mars.htm

When are the politicians going to do something. Environmental issues are vital and they don't do anything about it. One example is they way we treat the seas, the animals and the bushland. I'm trying to do something about the bushland clearance in Perth, I would like to collect enough signtatures to send to David Templeman, Minister for the Environment. If someone wants to participate go to: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/714194807?ltl=1174648136
Thanks for your help.