For someone who doesn't even believe there has ever been an ice age, Runner, you sure have a lot to say about climate change. Your role on this thread is purely as a spoiler.

One poster writes that "‘science’ has done nothing more than

taken a set of observations,

collected some scant and incomplete test data,

projected a hypothetical consequence,

postulated a number of theories of what the possible causes might be"

...and concludes it's all a socialist plot. Now, although science can connect the climate with purported human industrial activity, it takes real insight to connect climate with socialism. Be interesting to see the, um, reasoning behind it.

Bennie “it takes real insight to connect climate with socialism. Be interesting to see the, um, reasoning behind it.”

I posted this back on 12 May 2008

“Following the collapse of the communist system, the socialist radicals abandoned their overt representation of a failed political system and basically went “underground”.

The process of ‘entryism’, http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Entryism

And http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/nicholas_blincoe/2008/02/how_green_is_my_berry.html quote “The Greens are now only Green in name and the reason lies in the creation of Green Left in 2006, a leftwing entryist movement that now occupies many of the most powerful positions in the party. Founded by Peter Tatchell, among others, Green Left is an avowedly anti-capitalist movement.”

where someone of one political belief fraudulently enters another political group with the intention of either deliberate sabotage (something which Ted Bailleau is possibly experiencing) or to modify the goals and ideals of the host organisation, to better support the hidden entryist agenda. This practice was wide spread in UK throughout the 1970-1990s and is presumably still going on today.

The victim targets of many trotkyites and extreme left wing malcontents were the green and environmental movements, from where they could use the sentimentality of “saving anything” to undermine the democratic processes which are the real targets of their malcontent.” . . .

“based on a comment from the article “In short the Green movement is no longer a defender of environmental conservation, of the flora and fauna.”

I would ask, if not the preservation of the environment, what is the real “green agenda”?

Until someone can explain where all the political radicals and agitators of the past went (apart from those who have thrust copies of “Green Left” in my face with pleadings to buy), I am going to assume they have entered, among others, the environmental movement, from where the will continue to corrupt and pervert that movement to their real will.”

AGW as reason for a carbon tax, based on whatever methodology, is an exercise in “social leveling” because those less able to pay it are to be reimbursed through some form of fiscal adjustment.

simply put

Socialism by Stealth

Kulu asks;

“If anyone can provide me with references to peer reviewed scientific papers or other informed literature that questions the consensus on human induced climate change please let me know. There must be volumes of it out there as there certainly are enough skeptics about who must either be climate scientists themselves or have had access to accredited literature on the matter.”

Answer:

Use Google Scholar and type “Col Rouge”

[Aside: With any luck, you might also see his interpretation of why Munich Re is taking climate change so seriously]

Seriously, try; Nir Shaviv (Galactic Cosmic Rays), Roy Spencer (clouds) or Dick Lindzen (IRIS) ... some good stuff but unfortunately – they all have, umm ... ‘serious issues’. They should keep trying though.

There are of course over "31,000" scientists who think AGW is all crapolla (I was on the original list?!) and if you go to the so called “denialosphere” you will no doubt be given the papers you are looking for.

Q&A “I have opinions on subjects I am not expert in, so I defer to those that do – including my plumber, doctor and accountant. . I would be misguided in my knowledge, judgment and opinion if I was to tell them they have got it all wrong – this is not to say I can’t have an opinion, or question and learn from them.”

So your claim is, I am misguided for not accepting your opinion because you tell me you are an expert and I am not?

When I use the services of a plumber, lawyer or even accountant, I never forget, I can seek a second opinion (this I did recently on a medical matter and saved legs below the knee from amputation)

So Q&A whilst I too recognize we all rely on the counsel of "experts", to help us to resolve decisions and shape our opinions, we also need to consider that, just as William McBride was an expert in the care of pregnant women, the view of some experts should not be assumed to be omnipotent.

So, as far as your contributions to this opinion forum are concerned, I would more likely put you in the same “expert” class of a William McBride and thus someone whose “expert opinion” is not worth a brass razoo and that way I am not cutting myself off at the knees, or worse, like the victims of McBrides “expertise”.

No one has an exclusive right to direct the thoughts of other people and i would be "misguided" to rely on you.

History is littered with "opinon directors", one of the most successful was Stalin but I think the world would have been a far better place if the likes of Stalin had been drowned at birth.

Anyway, I did do as you suggested

Use Google Scholar - “Col Rouge”
Google scholar I got 66,400 hits

first up

High-performance liquid chromatography coupled to ion spray mass spectrometry for the determination

Sorry, not me.

And on “Google for the common folk” I got 4,950,000 hits,

what a popular fellow I am

Experts are people who can describe in great detail what happened after the event. Very useful if you want to reproduce an effect at a later date. That is the role of experts.
But whatever the final outcome of the global warming dilema experts do not exist yet. There has no final outcome to be an expert about.
The absolute best that can be done is to make the best we can of avilable information. This is one of those issues where it makes no difference if you are black or white, nazi, pinko commy barstard, or any other combination of insults that can be strung together. Make the wrong choice and we could all be in deep trouble.

A smattering of London politics and an unbased assumption does not a worldwide conspiracy make.

Anyone else?