get over it folks. There is always going to be disagreement about the aspects of the science - but to have over 2000 international climate scientists in agreement is extraordinary and virtually unprecedented (try and get that level of agreement on genetic engineering - another favourite of the IPA set. It is always true, even with the most basic of scientific issue that there will be disagreement. When we are dealing with an incredibly complex system that is poorly understood then the likelihood of disagreement increases dramatically. But the level of scientific consensus - not in tatters Bob! - and the evidence of our own daily experience suggest that we have a very large problem and it's time to stop debating with the expectation that we will reach a level of proof beyond any doubt - it's not going to happen. I would ask these shrill denialists to imagine that it was their child facing a long term and terminal illness. The diagnosis is not perfect, but strongly supports the need for immediate intervention. There are doctors that disagree (well, at least they are wearing white coats). The intervention isn't dangerous but demands serious life changes. Failure to intervene may be fatal. Is this a no- brainer or what?

Q&A
hello, I have posted his site now at least four times, yours is the first recognition of someone having read it?
Can it be that people don't want to leave their comfort zone of shock and horror?
Perhaps because he has retired he no longer is read? mores the pity.
His "playful" manner in educating ordinary people like me, instead of pandering to the convicted, is what I needed. He does try to explain why and who maybe behind the blind, by declaring the money flows so blatantly, to research people unable to get grants any other way.
I'm glad you read him, i will now not worry so much about the blathering that this site is so full of.
regards fluff

About 150 years ago Marx and his cronies espoused some socio-political mumbo-jumbo and some delude, restless souls, significantly lacking in analytical reasoning skills, thought it was what was needed to “save the world”, at that time.

After all we had Malthus predicting the end of life as was then known and Marx lurking, waiting for all to slide toward the abyss and for him to lead the revolution of redemption.

Today we have the product of Marx philosophy laying in tatters, discarded by anyone with more than half a brain, 100 million dead and billions who had lives seriously blighted by the force of revolution which Marx’s deranged thinking inspired.

Today we have the prophets of doom telling us “climate change” is about to extinguish life as we know it, the reincarnation of Malthus.

We have the same “Socialism by Stealth” brigade, a refined version of the Marxism of old, which will expropriate from everyones pocket the carbon tax to fight the fear of “global warming”, being massaged into a palatable pill for public ingestion.

We have the “climate” revolutionaries. The self-appointed commissars, willing to do the street fighting and thugery for this modern day Marxism. They come onto sites like this, full of hubris and post multiple links to dubious website, which supposedly support their agenda (in the 19th century they used paper flyers), claiming scientific credentials which they do not really have and then try to shout down anyone who opposes their view falsely accusing the opponents of anything derogatory from wearing brown shoes with a blue suit to eating the children of the poor, without being able to substantiate a word.

It would seem some of mankind does not learn from its mistakes.

Doubtless in another 150 years time people will look back and see the similarity of the cycle, that is assuming they are allowed to look back and are not under the tyranny of some future equivalent of a “climate-science” Stalin who was, after all, the result of Marx’s malignant philosophy

ad reducto Marxism Col?

Country Boy “ad reducto Marxism Col?”

Thankyou, CB, you have just illustrated my claim perfectly.

re “Nobody has yet explained the individual scientists individual personal motivation for wanting to 'hoodwink' the entire world.”

Check out Charles Dawson, William McBride or try this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_misconduct

Public money and private ego make persuasive mistresses

And I will not ask where the science of “Eugenics” came from

Just for your info, today to disappoint, I wore black shoes with grey pinstripe suit and it being well before dinner, have still to anticipate munching on the right leg of an infant.

Col

"100 million dead" is a great fallacy (cf., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism)

Climate change is a fact. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists consider it "extremely likely" (i.e., 95% probable) that 20th century increases in temperature are due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentration.

In any case, institutions like carbon taxes are actually not anti-capitalist. It was well recognised by the founders of capitalism that the "sacredness of property", "mixing of labour" etc, was not appliciable when it came to the value of common natural resources. If necessary I can provide direct quotations from Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, John Locke, David Ricardo, John Stuart Mill etc which makes this evident.

A basic introduction can be found in the following

http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/royallib.html
http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/tma68/geo-faq.htm
http://geolib.com/essays/sullivan.dan/greenlibertarians.html