Crock: "Sams , I "get" your argument" ... "Of course I accept many scientific concepts I don't fully understand".

Well there you demonstrate again that you don't "get" it. For example, I "understand" how to measure the distance form the Earth to the sun, but I have never done the calculation. I *trust* the results of others, based on their reputation.

Crock: "neither will I commit myself wholeheartedly to any new "model" until it has stood the test of time"

That might be OK if we had the luxury of time, but the point is that we just don't. Global warming is proceeding much more rapidly that we would have liked. What are you going to wait until all of the ice caps and glaciers are melted, where the exposed ocean and ground increase the warming to the point where the change is irreversible? Do you understand the degree of environmental damage that would do? The human cost would be beyond anything we have ever known.

Sams, you keep saying how clever you are, so maybe you are just too smart for me. maybe you noticed somewhere in my posts (there have been quite a few now, am I still an astroturfer?) but I've just forgotten where it was, that I said we should do nothing about our the way we use energy? For nearly forty years I have advocated we use less power, more renewables, less water and every other thing that greenies go on about in their boring way. Not only that but I have followed those principles in my own life, and as far as I can tell a lot more devotedly than some whole-hearted disciples of your greenhouse priests or the priests themselves. I see no reason to stop doing so now because I'm not convinced of a particular scientific argument which happens to have similar solutions to problems i believe DO exist. In your post you seem to tacitly admit the science isn't proven. Are you trying to tell me it is also a "luxury" to debate it? To try and found out what's actually happening? what about the several billion people who would like to have the same material living standard that you and I do, Sams? Don't they have the right to know the science is right? Curiously, Indian scientists commisioned by their Government came up with a very different view of the future when they looked at the "facts" than all the people you seem to slavishly follow ...

Amazing, quite a few posts and all of them attacking Sams. Probably not an astroturfer, just your run-of-the-mill sock puppet.

What a crock.

Bugsy : As my father used to say, I was talking to the butcher, not the block.

And I bet he said it to you often.

Crock: "Sams, you keep saying how clever you are, so maybe you are just too smart for me."

On he contrary, I think you are deliberately playing stupid. But I could be mistaken.

Crock: "Curiously, Indian scientists commisioned by their Government came up with a very different view of the future when they looked at the "facts" than all the people you seem to slavishly follow"

If its the study I think you are referring to then, no, they didn't "come up with a very different view of the future" at all. All they said was that a *few* of the typical signatures of global warming weren't currently apparent in their area. Others were. I've seen this same study miused a few times now.

Crock: "Bugsy : As my father used to say, I was talking to the butcher, not the block."

Would that be Crock the sock talking to the block?:-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)

"the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company"