Peter King “The "denialists" emails would be directly lifted from the tobacco lobby of past times;”

And the AGW advocates forget that “science” also brought
Oxygen for premature babies (which blinded them)
DDT
Lead in petrol
The wonders of a sick free pregnancy using thalidomide

Before we are drawn down a path of squandering opportunity on a red herring, the notion that humans cause, influence and can control “Climate Change”, I want an absolute guarantee that we are not imposing

Another excuse for extended governmental control on individual discretion, through excessive taxation and monopoly pricing policies.

We are not just being hood-winked into a yet another system of “collectivism” (by any name), when the world has already seen, time and time again, that such philosophies fail to deliver anything worth repeating.

We are not being defrauded by a group of pseudo-scientists who present papers based on bodgey data, defective modelling, emotional hysteria and good old fashioned lies.

The Climate Change lobby is very good at predicting catastrophe should their chosen path be ignored

But the climate change lobby has failed, at every turn, to give any assurances to the outcomes for humanity should their recommendations be implemented.

Like most people, I find it difficult to justify a response based on a threat

Nor the scientific "intimidation" which the AGW / ETS lobby repeatedly rely on.

The AGW/ETS strategy is no different to the ancient demands for “danegeld” or, as seen in more recent events, the strategies of terrorists, kidnappers and blackmailers.

Finally “As a "catastrophic fire warning" in NSW is issued today and we have had the hottest November ever”

Wrong.. since records were maintained and that has only been for a couple of hundred years (and the “scientific rigor” of past readings being less than consistent) Melbourne is experiencing torrential rain.. all that proves is the weather changes… but weather patterns change on short cycles, seasonally and they also change on longer cycles and they are also influenced by other “natural erratics” which all add up to say

“Weather Changes by the day"

rstuart

You are quite behind the times. The director of the East Anglia research unit has stood aside. Not because of the content of the leaked e-mails but because the research unit has lost the hard copy raw information of temperaturre history from around the world. That is the information upon which their 'tweaked' data, as supplied to the IPCC, is based.

Nobody can check the data calculations these 'scientists' produced because there is nothing to check it against anymore. ie there is no longer any factual proof backing their assertions that the earth is cooling.

So it is eminently possible, given the contents of some of those e-mails, that the original data supplied in their reports is manufactured to support their claims to global warming. It now cannot be proven.

sssssh you blokes must think people are totally gullible.

keith: "The director of the East Anglia research unit has stood aside. Not because of the content of the leaked e-mails but because the research unit has lost the hard copy raw information of temperaturre history from around the world."

I know he has stood aside. I trust it wasn't because of the "lost" data. The data concerned was 5% of the total. It wasn't lost so much as deliberately destroyed. It was on magnetic tape and paper. They were moving to new premises, had no way to read it and so they just ditched it.

keith: "Nobody can check the data calculations these 'scientists' produced because there is nothing to check it against anymore"

Actually, that isn't true. The CRU certainly destroyed copies of the data - but it wasn't their data. It was data given to them by various meteorological agencies, and of course those meteorological agencies still have it. I imagine that is one of the reasons they ditched the tapes and paper - if they need it again it would have been far easier to get a new electronic copy from the original owners than read it from those old media.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200912010030

Yes Runner,

Your god, whom you think created a pristine earth, must be "laughing" at those who wish to reduce the production of a poisonous gas, with vast amounts of associated sulphur and heavy metals.

You poor ignorant, stupid, blighter.

The best proof of non-existence of a god is the fact that you, your very self, are not just a smoking pair of boots. You presume on behalf of your supposed god that pollution is good , that opposing it is bad, and further, to know it's mind about others, whose thought processes you cannot match on your best day with the wind behind you.

I agree with Examinator on this one, that you are the greatest extant disendorsement of your religion. I hope your Pastor reads this.

By the way, had any luck with the "first cause" problem? Your supreme arrogance before failing to address such suggests that your pastor (let alone yourself) has never heard of this problem. I advise you maintain a respectful silence in the presence of your betters till you have.

Rusty