These posts are dramatic confirmation that the public domain is no place for scientific debate.

I made the point earlier, that vested interests and politics have forced the debate upon an unqualified public because science cannot “confirm” one way or the other.

I have never in my lifetime, seen so much public effort expended in trying to understand and research such a complex scientific topic. The sheer volume of reference web sites, publications and commentary is truly staggering and perhaps reflects the concerns and fears expressed by everyone on OLO.

OLO’ers have reached an almost academic level of understanding which is rewarding in itself and deserves recognition for truly impressive achievements.

Because of this public effort, many of us feel passionate about our level of understanding and naturally, we tend to defend that position, just like real scientists. This often manifests as acrimony and frustration.

In the end we are just dedicated but well meaning amateurs. There’s good and bad news in this. The good is that the vested interests and politicians have given us the opportunity to support or not, the ETS policy they have offered.

The bad news is, sorry about this, that we really don’t have a clue, no qualifications, knowledge, experience or tools. What we do have is a virtual tsunami of interpretation, opinion and views on this topic. Some of which we chose to adopt, some we chose to reject. Why? because we can, not because we are qualified to make a scientific assessment.

Q&A comments: <<For some time I too have said the “debate” is no longer about the science – rather, it is being played out within the realm of a political, economic and socio-cultural ‘bun fight’.>>

I replied to Q&A << To be fair, if you do support my position that the debate is not about science, I assume that like me, all scientific references will in future, be banished.>>

Who on OLO, is prepared to work through this debate without any reference to “scientific” content? Just to focus upon the socio- political and economic elements of these phenomena, no science

i would like these clever global/warming-tools..to explain how co2..[a heavy gas]..gets up above the lighter atmosphere gasses

[i seem to recall a co2/bubble that flowed out of a volcano vent killing 100's..about ten/years ago..it flowed..down-hill into a valley[ie it..didnt..float-up]

i recall dry/ice is co2..[i havnt yet been replied..how our breath floats on top of it..when our breath..creates a soap-bubble]

[i put it clumsy..as usual..[thus will explain the scene]

a kids-show..was blowing bubbles onto co2..[dry-ice returning to its co2..forming a mist hugging the ground..[after spilling out of the bowl]..

anyhow bubbles were blown..that floated down into the bowl of co2-gas[they floated,..even with co2 from our breath,..there was enough oxigen in the bubble to..FLOAT on the pure co2..!

get the absurdity..[you science/cabal-warning/nutters must KNOW co2 is heavier than air..!

[after all we are talking about a carbon-atom attatched to an oxigen-atom..[thus naturally heavier than an..'0'..with out a..'c'...

yet you endtime global warming prophets of DOOM..will still claim ignorance..[despite these simple science facts]

here is another..[single use air]..via.clean coal..[ie burn the air[then bury it forever]..ie use the air..[ONCE].and bury it..forever..

[HOW MUCH SPARE AIR..CAN WE BURY..TILL WE RUN OUT OF IT?

im told the plants scrub carbon..[c]..from the co2..making oxigen...[but that burying it means..we also bury our oxigen..[and your clever prophets of doom cant think it out;;lol

[worse your swallowing the deceptions to allow their latest tax grab]..are you cabal-change nutters as dumb as you appear to be..[or is there some hidden logic there somewhere]

us paying tax ..while the poluters get free carbon cash/credit..does what egsactly,..give more of our money to speculators cashing in on the co2 bubble?

[while the planet gets raped even more by industry retooling up for the brand new green ECONOMY..?

more green/jobs my butt

spain has lost 3 jobs for every green job it created

..[meaning govt needs a new tax..[cause the co2 tax is a global tax..[it raises nothing for national govts...[only multi-national carbon trading/traitors]bbbwankers...

so what other taxes will be loaded on the fewer workers..a tansaction tax on-top of the carbon-tax..[on-top of the carbom tax speculators bonuses?..a tax on bankfees?

Q&A, my confusion as to your website, or not, is due to possibly this post of yours on another thread .."Pericles .. Plimer raised some 'points', they had issues and are addressed here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/ .. I am not limited by word/post limits there."

If that's not your website, why would you say you are not limited by word/post limits? Or do you mean that's a site where most anything of the AGW belief can be posted without limit?

Also, I'm not trying to be facetious, or vindictive, I'm sorry you feel that way. This subject does put some folks on edge though.

I don't believe we understand enough about weather, let alone climate, to make the kind of judgments currently being held up worldwide that some people feel we should be gambling on.(or making Wagers on, sorry couldn't resist the dig)

In years to come there is a good chance, very good, that this age will be laughed at for it's gullibility and arrogance - but that's just my opinion.

Mil-observer,

I certainly think for myself but not in a vacuum. I formulate my opinions on the basis of evidence provided, in many cases by people who have spent decades investigating and thinking about issues, as well as on my own experience. In the absence of a cut and dried black or white answer to climate change hypotheses I accept the probabilities as they are explained just as I, after some thought rely to my doctor, accountant or lawyer to provide advice on matters on which they are expert and I am not.

Now mil-o have you satisfied yourself of the veracity of the claims you make by for example setting up a telescope and studying the sun spots yourself or relied on someone else’s work in that field to help form your opinions? Have you satisfied yourself too that your expert’s claims have been substantiated by other experts in the field through peer review or other rigorous process? Perhaps not. Perhaps you have done a detailed study of the ice sheets and sunspots yourself.

Have you considered the possibility or even the probability that your experts are misrepresenting or simply lying about the issues you take at face value?

One thing is for sure I rather do my own thinking than have you do it for me.

This is my last post on this thread.

John D. Sorry I took so long. The world engine is fueled by people. My answer to that is, if we reduce the worlds population and use the idea I put forward, in time the world will see what Iam talking about. Many fear the economy engine will fail with out more humans. Wrong! it becomes smaller and smarter, and IMHO, its the only answer that has any chance of working.

EVO

the worst thing is evo3cpo is dead serious..[and no doudt practices what he believes...because he surly couldnt be a hypocrite...lol..

[and he/she clearly has no kids..nor any mate]..and would definitivly practice what she/he preaches..lol..should any of his non children ever have the nerve to breed

[unles of course..its those others..who must die..so his clearly super genes can live on...lol...

you and yours are sad bro..really sad...you must have nightmares at night with all them lesser gene-types breeding and eating your food[taking your job...moving into your street/country...

farting in the air you need to breath..[bathing/peeing in the water you drink..touching your food with their unclean/unwashed hands..[spitting into your resterant meal...ejeculating in your booze

your a sad puppy dude