Dear Peter, over 100 years ago the “carpetbagger”, “snake oil” salesman would say to the undecided punter, would you like the red or the blue, the large or the small, the A or the B? This was called the “assumption close”.

You offer two assumption closes. Firstly that <<the debate has shifted from whether global warming is happening to what should be done about it >>, and secondly that << the debate is polarizing around two viewpoints. >>

The debate is not yet started, I’m sure that alone is enough to keep you awake at night, and the two views you assert must be at least three, because I do not support either choices.

When will you AGW’ers realize that agnostics would rather give ourselves a colonoscopy in the woods with a sharp stick than listen to your quasi-religious, pixies, fairies and aliens nonsense?

Your problem is that you have staked whatever reputation you may have on AGW. You have everything to lose if you cannot convince the agnostics. We, on the other hand, have staked nothing and therefore have nothing to lose.

Perhaps you might wish to consider dragging yourself screaming into at least the 1950’s?

And beware, when we have finished chewing off our own limbs in frustration with you, we might just start on yours

Pete,
You were doing well driving tractors. It's clear you're now way out of your depth.

If you'd paid more attention in school you might have ended up in a Department of History rather than a School of Sustainability, then you'd have known that statements like "The young, who are less invested in the prevailing arrangements of wealth and power, are more open to the idea of radical change in the overall political and economic structures..." is true only because they know no history and don't appreciate the wonderful consequences of the "radical change" which came from the Russian or French or [fill in your favourite] Revolutions. We all know what successes those were - for totalitarians, at least.

Anyone who can write such crap as "no one is seriously suggesting that nothing at all should be done" or "the debate has shifted from whether global warming is happening to what should be done about it"
or "...the high probability of anthropogenic global warming has become accepted by most world governments...due to some spectacular media successes, notably Al Gore’s movie and the well-received Stern Report" has zero credibility.

Don't confuse propaganda with science, Pete. But you're right in one respect: a lot of politicians have bought the propaganda because their heads hurt when they try to understand science or deal with logic and evidence.

Fat Albert and Stern are authorities? What tosh! Fat Al's a hypocrite and Stern is an economist who didn't address the science of AGW at all. Try Googling for the opinions of real experts.

You could start with any of these : http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004. Each has real qualifications, rather than a "Peace Prize" and a shonky video.

Then move on to the full list of 31,000 scientists who signed the petition:http://www.petitionproject.org/

Or just read Ian Plimer's excellent book, Heaven+Earth, which has already sold 25,000 in this country and is soon to be published in the US and UK.

Peter Mc,

Your well articulated, but sadly in my view, overly optimistic article has been hijacked my the "mob" - a bunch of skeptics who I venture to suggest have between them all spent less time in their entire cumulative existence on genuinely investigating the science behind global warming than you have in the last week.

Don't be too disheartened by it. Supporters of your viewpoint have probably taken one look at the crazy responses to your article and decided to hold back to avoid being the target of insults by a bunch of, for want of a better description, thugs.

Dear kulu,

<< the "mob" - a bunch of skeptics who I venture to suggest have between them all spent less time in their entire cumulative existence on genuinely investigating the science behind global warming than you have in the last week.>>

“Investigating the science”? As an agnostic layperson I’m not qualified in the science so I can’t investigate it and, I suspect, neither are you. I can however, observe the scientific community, politics and the commentariat.

Since the scientific community is split and can’t agree, politics and the commentariat are trying to decide for them, this is bad.

There are some 31,000 qualified scientists, 9,700 with PhD’s in this discipline who don’t agree with you. (See the link kindly provided by KenH in the above post). And there are many scientists with whom you do agree.

Your challenge, like that of all AGW’ers, is quite simple; explain why you don’t agree with the 31,000 qualified scientists?

The reason you, or anyone else will fail to meet this simple challenge is because you will have to support one or the other side of the scientific community (even if you were a scientist, get it?). This is problematic because the qualified scientists are split and you are not qualified to decide, therefore your position has been “adopted” from somewhere in the commentariat. You cannot be anything other than simply a “believer” in someone else’s non scientific perspective. That’s fine, just admit it, reality and confession are good for the soul.

Rather than wishing to “hold back” for fear of being insulted by the “mob of thugs”, I suspect you’re heading for the bunker as your ammunition supply depletes.

We are travelling at 600 knots and are at 4 thousand five hundred feet – Just below the speed of sound; on a Horizontal plain ,- Are you ready?
Flex your legs – Take a deep Breath - And Up we go to the Vertical – 7 Geees.
http://majorityrights.com/index.php/forums/viewthread/202/
Quick compilation of the elaborate fraud – that Of Global Warming- Climate Change.

Greedy men and Global Warming

As Adam Smith warned to make sure to couple his Laissez-faire with a balance between need and greed in competition, so we must take note of what economic greed can do to our world.

Certainly in this world today we need more dinkum philosophers possibly with mental facilities more like womenfolk, who especially with agrarianism, if my now dead wife was anyone to go by, was always against clearing big areas without the odd big tree and patches of bush not only to protect the odd steep slope, but to harmonise with nature.

One really wonders why so many of our OLO contributors are now treating tender-hearted nature worriers like slow learners when it is obvious they are the slow learners, reminding us oldies so much of smart talk in the country pubs of there not now being a tree large enough that could stop the latest bulldozer, and how great it was to turn our forested farmlands into prairies.

And over the years as engineering grows, so the huge riverside jungles can be removed like matchsticks, doubtless the above OLOs gloryng in modern man's ability.

Maybe if there was a decent educated sense of natural balance with our OLOs, but they seem sadly just the ones who make the above big talk, making one concerned so much about his Great Grandkids taking more notice of such as our foolish younger OLO's than any aged great grandpapa, or better still, a grandmama.

Heres's Hoping,

Regards, BB, WA.