Thanks Spindoc,
I think I understand where you are coming from better, but just think you are rather uninformed.

There is no scientific debate about the basics. Is “Area 51” a scientific debate? Is “The moon landing was forged” a scientific debate? Because the sceptic, including Plimer, argues on that conspiracy theory level of disjointed facts not properly argued from a real world framework. Plimer’s book is not peer reviewed and so sidesteps the REAL arguments.

So if you want to know what the real science on global warming starts with check the links I’ve provided on spectroscopy, greenhouse gases, and Co2.

Now, Y2K?

It did not happen — because governments and big business:-

* listened to the warnings...
* about a virtual problem that was easily fixed...
* by spending a little money fixing code
* just in time.

By the time Y2K ticked over the "geeks" were quite content with the situation. (My dad worked for IBM). Of course the "nutters" stored up tinned food and ammo for the Y2K apocalypse that never came.

Global Warming is the opposite.

* We have not listened to warnings...
* about an energy and climate crisis in the real world...
* of energy supply and vast energy systems that involve the laws of physics — not some computer codes
* requiring an enormous "war-time" emergency economy rebuilding and retrofitting entire cities and energy systems for the clean energy era
* and we have already missed the deadline which was 10 to 20 years ago! (See the DOE sponsored Hirsch report on peak oil) and our climate crisis seems to be accelerating out of control, faster than all predictions
* This time the climate “geeks” are anything but content!

And the "nutters"? Well, there will always be nutters. But we need to recognize the sheer difference between fixing a bit of code for Y2K, and changing the energy systems of our entire civilization and dealing with the consequences of pushing Co2 from 280 ppm up to 385 ppm, higher than at any time in the last million years.

“…..everyone hold their breath (which is CO2 and H2O rich). If all 6 billion or so of us humans did this little thing, how wonderfully natural our environment would be.”

Hi Kalin1. The suggestion above would make little difference to the natural environment since the CO2 humans exhale is carbon that was originally taken out of the air by recent plants through photosynthesis – whether you eat the plants directly or animals that eat the plants – thus a closed loop with no net addition to the atmosphere.

The reason why burning fossil fuels is a concern is because it is not a closed loop over human time scales. Extracting coal, gas and oil and burning them puts carbon back into the atmosphere that plants removed millions of years ago.

Just think about it. If Mother Nature intended for fossil fuels to be used by humans, surely she would have left them on the surface for easy access? And surely she would have rendered them benign? Instead smart Mother Nature chose to bury the most hazardous chemicals known to man (to protect her ecosystems) but man, in his wisdom, chose to dig them up and pollute the entire planet. To add insult to her injuries, lunatics like Plimer et al insist that pollution is good for the planet so Mother Nature can drop dead (literally) while the greed merchants continue on rampage.

In addition, those who say volcanoes emit more carbon dioxide than humans are incorrect. Scientists estimate that humans emit nearly 150 times more CO2 than volcanoes.

Industrial carbon dioxide, from the burning of fossil fuels is easily identified by its different isotopes - there is no confusion there though Plimer et al like to manufacture some.

I’m in agreement about the ETS, however, we need to devise a system to take fossil fuel derived carbon from the atmosphere and it needs to be done quickly. The “Polluter Pays” principle (without the ETS rewards) already legislated through the EPA legislation, though abused and corrupted, comes to mind. It should be enforced pronto! If not, why not?

Eclipse Now, thank you and congratulations. You responded with two posts and no resorting to abuse.

Whilst I might be as you suggest, “rather uninformed”, could I just point a couple of things you might wish to consider?

Firstly, I did not suggest in any way that <<global warming is "soft" science but skeptics have "hard" science on their side.>> If that were the case there would be no debate, yes? What I said was that a skeptic has not yet been convinced that there is “hard” supporting science and that this is what we skeptics seek.

You also persist with scientific mumbo jumbo when we are both agreed you are not qualified to deal with it. I still don’t know what you’re talking about and I don’t wish to.

Thank you also for your dissertation on the technicalities of the millennium bug however, apart from it being unmitigated rubbish, I specifically said that this phenomenon was examined in relation to “public reaction” to a matter, like GW, about which the public knows nothing.

If your Dad really did work for IBM I will know him. So why don’t you take the comments you wrote about the millennium bug and show them to him? If he worked for IBM you will get one of two possible responses, firstly a right good kick up the anus and/or break your fingers so you can’t embarrass him or his company again.

Having dispensed with the distractions you have thrown up, can you please now address the main issues in my posts, as they relate to you of course? You asked me specific questions and I’ve given you my open and honest answers. Your turn. No more web links with other peoples’ opinions, just yours will do fine. Oh! And no more science thanks.

Progas,

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure you will, and quickly (as opposed to the speed at which acknowledgements come when you are WRONG, ie. indetectable), but;

didn't you say you drive a 95 Volvo? If so, I'm intersted in the materials that were used to construct this particular model, the fuel you use to propel the contraption, and where it is available?

Eclipse,

Thank you for defining and exemplifying the meaning of internet troll. An alternative definition could be: a poster who disagrees with me.

What sort of morally superior ponce believes themselves to be in a position to deny the love of another person for their children! I didn't realise the 'Eclipse' in your name referred to the orbiting pea that eclipses your brain.

The leaders of this glowbull warming scam hopefully will be brought to justice unlike the neocons who got away with the Weapons of Mass Destruction scam.
Killer Bees, Nazism, Acid Rain, Oat bran, Y2k, UFO's, Bigfoot, cold fusion, Global Cooling Ice Age, Oprha, disco...............
History will not be kind to you warmies. Get ahead of the curve.
We can work together to preserve our world, not save it from a myth. Let’s set an example for our kids and show them what being brave and hard working can do instead crying wolf with needless fear and ignorance.
There is a growing movement in a generation of children now who are growing and rebelling already at being motivated by your self-serving fear.

Eclipse Now it's evident that we’ve been left trying to debate the topic with a few simian styled loonies. Must we continue enduring the many alter egos of the psychotic and irrelevant meme, the despicable fungus who detests being left out of the loop – “didn't you say you drive a 95 Volvo?” totally irrelevant to the topic though I’ve never driven a Volvo in my life and Spindoc, imbued with an embodiment of arrogance: “ Oh! And no more science thanks.” Naturally, since scientific facts get in the way of foul play eh? I leave you now to peruse a few more reviews of Plimer's book:

“His views remain ‘his views’ and have not been considered for their veracity by anyone else.. Plimer’s book has many errors in it.” (Prof. Woodruffe)

“Ian Plimer’s affectionate recollections of past warm and fertile times are dangerous. We can go on and warm the planet to levels of those past eras, but there will be profound payback, via sea level rise, ocean acidification, and climate change that is of an unprecedented scale since civilisation began." ( Prof. England)

“This publication clearly represents an extraordinary personal effort on the part of Ian Plimer, and undoubtedly he has much to offer the climate-science community, as other geologists have done. It would be better that he joins that community rather than presupposes that the rest are somehow misled, inferior scientists or perhaps just stupid.” ( Dr Graeme Pearman)

"...This book repeats many of the common mistakes that are frequently made by climate scientists who haven’t read the peer reviewed literature or the peer reviewed science reports undertaken by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).” (Prof. Bindoff)

"I have also twice debated climate change in public with Ian Plimer. His position is a combination of sound geological knowledge which is irrelevant to the debate about climate change, and a wilful misunderstanding of recent climate science…. The harsh reality is that the probability of dangerous human interference to the Earth's climate system is now alarmingly high and the survival of civilisation demands urgent concerted action." (Prof. Lowe)