Col,

Next?

Let me guess, "socialism by stealth".

Hi all

If you want me to take you seriously at all, you need to get your heads out of the gutter. I think many of you have been totally disgusting - and discredit your own lame causes.

For those who would like to talk about scientific method, one of my favourite posts on science of all time comes from John Mashey, where in his <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/08/john_mashey_on_how_to_learn_ab.php"> blog (on science blogs)</a> he compares the scientific method to the Great Wall of China. Each study is a single brick in a huge wall, and reinforces the hypothesis. Climate change is one of the most proven scientific theories after Gravity, and so that wall is pretty strong.

Those hypotheses that have deviated significantly from the scientific consensus of the day and are shown to be correct (through the rigours of the scientific method) go on to win Nobel Prizes. If climate sceptics were correct, and could prove their ideas using the conventional channels, they would have won a Nobel Prize by now.

And in relation to the distance to parliament house, The Hyatt is very close to the front lawns of parliament house. It's near 100 metres.

"Those hypotheses that...are shown to be correct...go on to win Nobel Prizes. If climate sceptics were correct, and could prove their ideas using the conventional channels, they would have won a Nobel Prize by now."

Quite. The same applies to the Intelligent Design spruikers, who are experts at deriding good science through ad hominem and misrepresentation, but spectacular failures at producing any scientific evidence themselves which might prove their case.

The parallels between the two anti-science movements are remarkable - probably because they spring from the same fear of change and uncertainty.

Anne07 (is that to mimic Kevin07, oh please) I think you take yourself too seriously and wear your immaturity on your sleeve, most of us don't care if some self centered brat doesn't take them seriously, you degrade yourself with name calling and quite obviously losing your temper.

Quite a little exhibition you have just given us, so maybe I was correct that your type starts these clubs rather than joining one because you want to be the one telling everyone what to do.

Climate skeptics don't have to prove their point, its the AGW believers who have to prove their point and that's your problem not mine. If you want to run around saying the sky is falling, you have to prove it. (BTW the Nobel prize was awarded to Gore and the IPCC for Peace, not Science, go look it up.)

No one questions that climate changes, that's green industry furphy, what is questioned is whether man is causing the climate to change and what if any the contribution is. Have a read of the OLO forums sometime, this subject is discussed regularly with varying degrees of passion.

Getting all hissy, yelling and insulting to cajole people as your troops have done when you have obviously rounded them up tonight, is not going to convince anyone of anything other than reinforce the belief that you're a self centered bully.

How much evidence do you need, rpg?

If you still doubt that human activity is influencing the climate, then you're effectively announcing that you'll believe whatever the industry lobby tells you, without the slightest query or criticism.

Thanks. Now we have to save the future from you.

I wish I could restrict myself to short, snarky comments which is all this article deserves. Personally, Anne, I've found nothing in the responses as "disgusting" as your suggestion of some form of policy inaction being a crime against humanity. And you have the audacity to refer to Orwell! Take your line to its logical extension and we are all guilty of crimes against humanity, so why bother prosecuting Nazi murderers? Pol Pot? Indeed, fundamentalist environmentalism has found its Original Sin: breathing. To live and breathe out CO2 is to poison the air. Should I take myself to The Hague now, or will you come for me in the night? Oh yes, we are all sinners in Anna's eyes, condemned not to Hell but to hell on earth. Forgive me if I don't think it's a sin to be alive. Oh, that noble PETA woman who aborted her child because it would be immoral to bring a child into the world. When a child is seen not as a blessing but as a sin, we have sacrificed more than an unborn baby, but something at the core of our humanity. To echo Chesterton on secularists and atheists, enviro-fundamentalists, out of hatred only of the other, are so determined to convince us of hell to come, they sacrifice humanity on an empty altar, and make as darn sure as they can that nobody has a particularly jolly time now.