CJ in denial about skepticism, as usual.

I beg to differ.

To believe in AGW you need to be convinced of TWO things:
1) The earth is warming , &
2) That warming is due to anthropocentric factors

If the earth is warming, but it’s short term blip/cycle (and long term in earth terms is not a decade or two, or even a century!) --- AGW is false
If the earth is warming, even be it long term, but it’s not anthropogenically induced --- AGW is still false

AGWers have proposed remedial measures in the guise of “give the earth the benefit of the doubt” .
And if you’re talking insurance premium figures -- this may be fair strategy.

But such leading AGWers as Richard Tol are talking of “$US40 trillion in 2100”, much of which will seemingly go as compensation to developing nations.With such large stakes, it would be prudent to be more than a little SURE of your position .Especially since, when the AGW-special-funding has been burnt , it’s a safe bet that the developed world will still be required to contribute traditional aid to many such developing nations,.

Another reason we need to sceptical is quite a bit of the information we’re being fed belongs to the genre hard-sell shonk.
NewScientist [04/07/09] --- a magazine that just luuuuvs to spruik AGW.
i) Sea levels are rising
ii) A 1 metre will put 60million people at risk
iii) By 2100 it’s likely to be 130million,
[ conclusion: Decisive action is required to cut CO2 emissions now]
Question1: why would endangered nations grow from 60 to 130 million if they’re facing such dire straits?
Question2: why does the report NOT investigate the prudency of them controlling populations & settlement patterns?

Which all leads me to think AGW is NOT primarily about: “ Gee-whiz the world is warming, we’d better cut back on our polluting” or, “Gee-whiz we’re running out of oil, we’d better develop alternatives”. For the donor nations its more like , “Gee-whiz lets borrow a couple of billion and plunk it all on red 16 at the casino”

Like I said, bluster and bile. Ignorance prevails.

AGW is no longer a scientific issue, based on data, hypothesis testing, interpretation, modelling and extrapolation. It's become a fullblown political nightmare.

I really hope the denialists are right, because I can't see anything remotely effective coming out of Copenhagen. It'll be the ideological silliness we've just seen here writ large - any proposals that might actually reduce greenhouse emissions will be negotiated back to useless symbolic gestures, just like the abortion of an ETS that the Senate just rejected.

The only thing that will help will be if the climate delusionists prove to be correct, and that AGW is really a mass fantasy and conspiracy shared and promoted by the world's leading climate specialists, not to mention the great majority of ordinary people with access to media, internet and library resources.

I really, really hope that the climate delusionists are right.

A few "inconvenient truths" for those who would like to name themselves "sceptics" but in reality

1. Do not accept the basic laws of physics and chemistry of the atmosphere.
2. Have been fabricating numbers and false plots in their non-peer-review articles over the last 10 years.
3. Liberally use ad-hominem against climate scientists.
4. Raise absurd conspiracy theories against the world's premier climate science organizations (Hadley-Met, NASA/GISS, Potsdam, NSIDC, CSIRO).

And yet have the temerity to complain some scientists do not provide them with unpublished raw data ...

Especially Andy1 they pretend the laws of physics do not exist.

Scepticism is good.

Denial of reality is dysfunctional.

That is so silly Stephen.

The laws of physics don't allow AGW to be caused by CO2.

The only way their models can get a warming result is to assume a positive feedback from water vapour.

All the evidence to date is that the feedback is exactly the opposite, with any warming quickly cancelled by cloud formation. In that respect, AGW has been cancelled, although it is probably impossible to cancell something that never existed.

As before, a little honesty by your idles, & the host of B grade academics currently rushing into print would help.

Obviously they don't have the physics, or simply value their jobs, more than their future reputation. Still, I guess it is only the main players who will be despised in the future. The rest are easily forgotten.