sigh! don, "disgust" describes my reaction, it is not abuse. ditto not giving a "damn" about your summary of agw. i gave my reasons for both of these.

the first pejorative directed at your argument (not you) was "clumsy", as in "your clumsy references to scientific history". so let's see. from your article:

"So the notion that the sun revolved around the earth was controverted by the telescope and reasoning, some of Newton’s laws of gravity were controverted by Einstein".

you are right, that i should have not referred to this as clumsy. i should have described it as meaningless or wrong, or both. (if you don't know why, look it up: wikipedia should suffice). please forgive me for pulling my punches.

shall we go through the other adjectives? let's not and say we did.

please do not confuse contempt with abuse.

And while the boys, er, fiddle on, industry continues to pollute....

"My first visit to the SIPCOT Chemicals Hub in Cuddalore, India could have appeared deceptively pleasant to outside eyes. It's a beautiful day and there's a good breeze as we drive past the welcome sign for SIPCOT. The air in some places seems far cleaner than the air in nearby Chennai. In some spots it smells sweet, in others, like opening a bottle of ibuprofen -- an antiseptic, medicinal smell.

That is until my throat gets sore, I feel a bit nauseated and my guide starts retching. My guide, a local community environmental monitor finally recovers with bloodshot eyes. A headache follows and I begin to wonder how anyone manages to work in these facilities. SIPCOT Chemical Hub sandwiches its picturesque fishing villages in between rusting hulks of chemical factories. The court ordered waste channels are overflowing with an eerily pale blue green liquid, cattle graze not far away."

http://www.alternet.org/environment/85630/

Enough with the size contest, we need to clean up our act - is there no-one paying attention?

Keiran
The only way for us to ‘observe’ the evidence is to conduct the experiment, and we are. The results tell us we should tread with caution, particularly when we have no other test tube to conduct the experiment in (While presumptuous, I don’t think either Don Aitken or Geoff Davies would disagree).
Regardless, you are again promoting the issue of “scientism” when you yourself use the science of cosmic rays, solar irradiance and sun spots to dismiss the significance of AGW – you seem to contradict yourself.
Yes, the media has a very important role in ‘disseminating’ the science and, as we continually see, it is the media that often ‘sensationalises’ a story. It really is incumbent on the scientists to ‘keep the bastards honest.’ As we have seen, this is not easy to do, and as you (and others here) so clearly demonstrate, they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
In reference to GCMs; hindcasts have been very good (giving us more confidence). No one can predict the future. However, we can project a future if certain things happen (or don’t happen) – focal to the current debate.

Arjay
I entered ‘green house effect experiment’ into my search engine and had no problem. Here is a link to an experiment conducted in high schools;

http://www.espere.net/Unitedkingdom/water/uk_watexpgreenhouse.htm

Of course, the enhanced green house effect is more complicated.
Also, to get the geologic record in perspective, try these;

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/20000yrfig.htm

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/paleoclimate.htm#iceage

It's worth noting that the current era is being generically referred to as the anthropocene, for obvious reasons.

Geoff
I can understand your frustration in light of the issues you raise. Can you see a better way to disseminate the science? Nevertheless, Don raised a salient point in a previous article comment in relation to Natural Sciences, Humanities and Social Sciences.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7335#113500

While not resolved, it could be argued the whole kerfuffle can be distilled down to the philosophical bun-fight that has rocked science and the arts for millennia.

When one chooses to go on the warpath one must be confident about his position and clear and unshifting about one’s goals. Dr Davies seems like a defeated “combatant” to have abandoned the field of battle and its original goal. Now his goal no longer is to prove that greenhouse emissions cause global warming but to argue, by shifting his position and aims, that by stopping the “over-exploitation of the earth, reducing “energy use and greenhouse emissions”, all of which are easily achievable according to him, the end result will be ‘to improve our lives’, save money, and “allow our grandchildren’s grandchildren to inherit a rich and fulfilling world”.

With this new position Dr Davies has dropped the scepter of science from his hand and replaced it with the staff of the Greek seer Tiresias predicting generations ahead the fulfilled life of “grandchildren” But forgetting that the threats to a happy future of mankind do not only arise from the over exploitation of the earth but also from the mutual deadly belligerence of men their religious dogmas and ideologies.

And also his zinger that “if we are causing global warming” by “a change in our lifestyle… for reasons other than global warming…it would mitigate that problem too. If not, no harm done” Hence, there is a great chance that by the Walpolean fairy of serendipity AGM will evaporate.

http://kotzabasis1.wordpress.com

Themistocles

I disagree, it is not a war between us/them, Right/Left, scientists/non-scientists, whatever ...

Whether you believe in AGW or not, we must adapt to a warmer and wetter world.

Whether you believe in AGW or not, we must live in a more sustainable way.

By addressing both, we lessen the threats to food/water resources, energy supply/use, biodiversity/environment, national/international security, etc.

In my challenge of 17 May my intention was to broaden the view to see if there might be some common ground. Evidently Thermistocles wasn't capable of comprehending that.

I'll broaden it even a little more. If you don't believe we can endlessly increase our use of Earth's resources, the implication is that at some time we will have to change the way our economies work, and also stop the increase in population. If you also agree the Earth is showing many signs of over-exploitation (I include global warming, though you may not), then it suggests the time is now. Then, why would you spend so much energy arguing against "AGW"? Why not argue for (or work for) the change we must make?

Clive Hamilton on New Matilda says a better description of many objectors is "contrarian". Do you just like to object and be contrary? If so, deal with your personal problem instead of spraying it around on everyone else.

If you think we CAN endlessly increase our use of Earth's resources, I can only refer you to basic physics, starting with conservation of mass. (Note: I said "endlessly increase our use of resources". I didn't say "indefinitely improve the quality of our lives". We can use fewer resources more cleverly than we do now and still live well.)

If you don't see the Earth showing any signs of stress, I suggest there are none so blind as those who will not see.

I refer everyone to Clive's article:
http://www.newmatilda.com/2008/05/19/death-rattles-climate-change-skeptics
He does a better job than me of giving a fair portrait of science, climate scientists and IPCC, and contrasting them with the shonky denialists, who of course always claim there's a conspiracy to prevent them from publishing.