Q&A, cannot differentiate climate change from pollution issues nor science from politics .... so it is not surprising he confuses fact from fiction because it doesn't matter. Facts have never mattered to the AGW believer but is this simple muddle-headedness or devious, deliberate manipulation? I suspect more the latter with this typical Professor Schpinkee statement of "you're wasted space".

The only self-evident fact of nature here is that this whole AGW milieu is a contrived and twisted unreason, coupled with systematic manipulation in the media by fraudsters.

Yeah. The whole friggin' world's got it wrong.

Keiran “The only self-evident fact of nature here is that this whole AGW milieu is a contrived and twisted unreason, coupled with systematic manipulation in the media by fraudsters.”

I have said similar and have been confronted with the pretentious and arrogant assertions of my right to express a view by Q&A and his ilk.

Good work Keiran.

Stand up for what you believe, ultimately, your view is as valid as Q&As view and is likely better reasoned.

I still await for Q&A to evidence the “misguided” statements I have made and his acolytes claim I have supported cartels and when challenged, these men on mud are hosed away, like silt down the gutter.

Bennie “Yeah. The whole friggin' world's got it wrong.”

Well alot of kids with no arms or legs think the world, when lead by “scientists”, got it wrong over thalidomide.

The issue of supposed AGW, even if it were established (distinct from natural GW or merely the figment of bodgy modeling) is too important to be left to a bunch of scientific ego-maniacs to decide.

I am not going to play your inane "bait and switch" games Col Rouge.

Q&A “I am not going to play your inane "bait and switch" games Col Rouge.”

Ah Q&A, talking down to we common fellows, from your lofty academic . . . . loft.

Well in making your post, you have already played it.

But that you have neither the tenacity or wit to playon simply means you default the match.

I guess it is now away from the real world and back to the cloisters, where you can contemplate your elevation, some day in the future.

Tell me what is someone who describes themselves as “nearing status emeritus” apart from, obviously not “emeritus”?

This thread asks ... why listen to scientists? Well here is a home grown group of scientists that helps to provide the answer. Read this article in the SMH and see how this AGW crowd are shifting from temperature to environment alarm in a typically mindless religious mode.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/06/06/1212259115421.html?feed=fairfaxdigitalxml

There are those people, naive or otherwise, who accept these public pronouncements because they have great trust in science and scientists ... particularly home grown scientists connected to the CSIRO. From my perspective this is as good an example to highlight what i call "this whole AGW milieu as a contrived and twisted unreason, coupled with systematic manipulation in the media by fraudsters.” In this case we see that scientists can be just as venal as anyone else in the community when it comes to seeking funding.

e.g. Get a junior "scientist" to weigh the shell of a tiny sea snail and hold her breath, then exclaim "Wow, what is going on?" Then in comes her collaborator, one Dr Will Howard, to convene an extraordinary meeting of 50 of Australia's leading marine scientists. Then promote the acidification of our oceans threat. Then it moves to human CO2 emissions as the culprit. Then it is all dramatic anxieties of time running out, delicate hotspots, krill and whales, acidification and more acidification,, , etc with immeasurable consequences.

It is not difficult to see this as deliberately misleading and alarmist. With seawater having a pH of around 8.1, it would take a monstrous amount of CO2 to move it anywhere near a neutral pH of 7 let alone to get to acidic levels less than 7. With the pre-industrial atmospheric C02 at 335ppm and todays’ level at 390ppm we get an increase of about 55ppm, or a 16.4% increase in C02, about 1/2 what the alarmists claim. If our contribution is 3% and half is what gets absorbed into oceans then its effect is meaningless.

These are pseudo-scientists behaving fraudulently. Also, if young Donna Roberts should actually be allowed to do proper science she will find the real wow factor.