Thank you, mememine69. Now wait outside and the receptionist will bring you some biscuits and a glass of orange juice while the grown-ups finish talking.

What would the climate have to do now to prove that the theory of Global Warming was wrong after all?
I dare any warmie to answer this. You can't.

Yes, the myth list has a lot to do with language and straw men, and I dispute most of it. New Scientist clearly isn't immuned to Old Politics.

Myth 1: "Chaotic systems are not predictable."

In Kantian terms, the statement is an analytic judgment whose predicate (unpredictability) is already contained in its subject (chaotic systems), and thus denial can only mean self-contradiction. Far from a myth, the statement above is a truism.

Myth 13. "The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong"

Of course it hasn't. It was never a theory to be proven wrong, but a reconstruction based on dubious proxy data and spurious manipulation, that was shown to be unfalsifiable and therefore invalid. It was discredited and fell just short of fraudulence. The IPCC promptly relegated it to the backpages. Oh, there may be other hockey sticks, but none I'd want to play hockey with!

I won't go through them all, but I mainly challenge the language used.

And your own language is alive with myth, Eclipse. Eg. Why 280ppm in your comparison with 385ppm of today? Where is the other time referent? Why not 1400ppm, as it has been in the past? Cause that would throw your “finely balanced cycle” into the realm of pure myth?

Any historical account of climate, such as Plimer’s, shatters this myth. Big cycles, smalls cycles, small cycles in big cycles, overlapping cycles - and even then, just when you thought you could still make a nice geometrical picture of cycles, a bloody volcanic eruption or meteor comes along and turns the whole thing into a right Kandinsky.

mememine69, if the science was wrong the climate wouldn't be changing, so you're asking how we'll know if the science is wrong when the climate keeps proving the science right, thus demonstrating that you should take the juice and biscuits while they're still on offer and stop wasting valuable forum space.

And fungochumley, what's your opinion on the credibility of “The Great Global Warming Swindle”?

Sancho

Plimer's 'Heaven & Earth' will be considered a bible for the church of 'deny-n-delay' and he himself the new messiah. The congregation of anti-scientists and pseudo-sceptics will mine-quote (as we have already seen), wave the book, thump the lectern, admonish and attempt to quiet the masses.

Onlookers are not surprisingly confused or pee'd off.

Plimer has written a book and other OLO'ers have linked to what the science community think of it. Plimer's congregation don't want to know this, they close their eyes and cover their ears.

Plimer has not devoted the effort into writing a scientific paper to argue his opinions, for 3 reasons:

They would not stand up to peer review.
There is no money in that.
Vested interest in delay.

so funny to see one lot of pseudo scientist debating another pseudo scientist (Plimer). Keep it up kids.