As we have seen, there are some people that are very good at snipping and sniping from their pseudo-scientific armchairs ... they are smug, flippant and generally engage in snarky and often fallacious remarks.

In reality, these people show little understanding of the science, although to the untrained these people give the impression that they know what they are talking about, when in fact they do not. This in despite them being given links and references to answer their questions and misunderstandings.

Other people are afraid of what the future has in store (for whatever reasons) so prefer to maintain the status-quo, regardless of the consequences.

It is also apparent that many people, knowingly or unknowingly, adopt a position on ‘climate change’ based on their political or ideological leaning – this is fallacy. And for those that didn't know - it was a George W Bush advisor, Frank Luntz, who coined the term "climate change" in his now infamous memo to the White House.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange

David Evans says “the Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions.” These are very strong assertions from the author, I would like to see more evidence than his say-so – or is this another ‘deny and delay’ tactic as we are consistently bombarded with?

David Evans also asks:

“What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise?”

There are a number of issues that disturb me about this unqualified assertion, not least the false premise or his apparent ignorance of statistical analysis. Notwithstanding, maybe we could in turn ask of him:

What is going to happen over the next decade if global temperatures continue to rise?

For a completely different perspective, which examines the geological record and processes of the earth and dismisses the IPCC approach, see the work of O.G. Sorokhtin, George Chilingar and Leonid Khilyuk. Their work is reviewed in a serious journal at http://www.sepm.org/jsr/book_revs/2008_revs/br_sorokhtin.pdf, and much of the book can be sampled online at Elsevier's site (sorry, I've lost the link, but got it through a google search of the authors).

If anyone has seen a refutation of this work, please advise! If not, join the sceptics!

PS here's the link to the referred book which allows you to read much of it.

http://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&id=FbvNhOUVMBkC&dq=George+Chilingar+and+Leonid+Khilyuk&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=bCpl4TU34Y&sig=nul-4VnEFrrPi1zBXBsxujOs3eg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

"If anyone has seen a refutation of this work, please advise! If not, join the sceptics!" (Faustino)

Refutation as requested Faustino. It appears that the authors have not taken the brief time scale of A/CO2 into consideration.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/36w570322514n204/fulltext.pdf

http://n3xus6.blogspot.com/2006/12/denialist-hopes-dashed.html

In the meantime, I shall decline your offer to "join the sceptics." Thanks, but no thanks.

Cheers

This quote seems to be most closely related to dickie's purported refutation: "Both theory and climate models indicate that warming will reduce the decrease of temperature with height, producing a negative lapse rate feedback that weakens the greenhouse effect."

The above quote is from wikipedia's compilation on GW as referred in the Nexus 6 reference.

Unless I read that mistakenly, it would mean that dickie ultimately bases his refutation on faith in certain AGW-touted theory and models - along with faith in the status and institution attached to the theory and model writers' names.

So back to a fundamental question for dickie et al: what do you really think of Al Gore's (and others') grand claims about CO2 causing GW?

One funny aspect I noticed from dickie's Nexus 6 source: those who question and dispute AGW are labelled "right wing", "reactionary" and presumed to work for big-money energy interests.

IPCC's leadership and sponsorship are World Bank trusties, Al Gore's a hedge fund manager, and the west's energy producers are all locked into the scam as another way of squeezing bigger prices out of the people. Then emissions trading will open up a whole new casino of speculation - apparently the great hope of monetarist bubble-blowers.

Such then are the leading elements of what is meant to be a non-right wing / non-reactionary push in the west's strategic direction? Hmmm, must have come from some special theory and modeling on ideological trends.

"For a completely different perspective, which examines the geological record and processes of the earth and dismisses the IPCC approach, see the work of O.G. Sorokhtin, George Chilingar and Leonid Khilyuk. Their work is reviewed in a serious journal" ..

Um, the "review" you link to is actually the Forword from the book - not surprisingly is supports the book's findings :-)

From the blurb: "The theory of the Earth's climate evolution based on universal chemical-physical laws of matter-energy transformation is presented in the book."

Pseudo-scientific goobledygook.