This is long on hackneyed and juvenile abuse and short on logic.

Can we leave the sandpit and join the adults now?

What if someone somewhere had a plan to establish a "new" New World Order out of all of this global warming thing.
A "new" New World order that got rid of a few unwanteds that would inhibit the great plan?
They could rule and do what they wanted. I wonder if the world leader in Revelation 13:16-18 and 14:9-11 (the Beast) was behind it even though he hasnt popped up yet.

"This is long on hackneyed and juvenile abuse and short on logic.

Can we leave the sandpit and join the adults now?"

Are you talking about the thread or the sermon by Archbishop Bob, that luminary of the Church of Skeptology?

Fester, I was talking about the article being long on abuse and short on logic.

I have been trying to think what drives climate change sceptics. Much of their thinking seems to be reflexive defence of an economic system which seems incapable of developing long term solutions to immediate problems because its very essence is short term profit making. (The failure to immediately eradicate hunger is another example of its short termism.)

Now that the mode of production may threaten that very profit making essence, most see the problem. Some do not because the economic system for them is self correcting. This may express itself in global warming scepticism and its apologists in the media like Murdoch et al.

I'd have to think some more about this.

What concerns me about the debate on climate change it that we're no longer allowed to have one. Those that challenge 'The science" are labeled climate change deniers.

My greatest concern is the impact the current unquestioning belief that planetary disaster is nigh is having on the social fabric of life. My vision of apocalypse is for humanity. Knee-jerk reactions abound an policymaking is being shaped on the basis of 'shoddy' science. It will be a dark age if we continue to tolerate a one-sided debate

Countryboy asks “why would almost the entire global scientific community exaggerate…”

Well, it’s not the entire global scientific community which is making all the noise. Read the newspaper article referred to by the author. Scientists have had very little say in the warnings and waffling put out by IPPC. Some scientists go along with the human cause propaganda for their own reasons, others do not. The others are the ones the media ignores because their story of natural climate change doesn’t have the shock and fear value of the former.

Countryboy’s last paragraph clearly recognises that the people he believes are mere humans, so even he is not sure of whether or not they are right.

In a follow-up post, CB says: “Nobody has yet explained the individual scientists individual personal motivation for wanting to 'hoodwink' the entire world.”

It’s all about fear and control, CB. Democracy is becoming a little too hard for politicians to deal with. You seem to have very naïve ideas about the people we elect. The scientists are after funds and fame; the politicians are the ones using their dubious ‘findings’ to put the wind up us.

BBoy tells us that Graeme Pearman (don’t think he has ever put a view on OLO) says Bob Carter is not a “credible source on climate change”.

Bob Carter could probably say the same thing about Graeme Pearman.

The climate argument is good for another 50 years at least. At the present time, there seems to be more emoting than logical thinking on the subject.