So you weren't being honest, spindoc? If it wasn't already, your pseudonym seems particlularly apposite after your last post. Are you actually some kind of shill IRL?

You said:

<< I agree with you, if the percentages were changed the analogy would work. David offered 99%, which is his “degree of certainty”.

So what percentage will you offer and how would you arrive at that figure? >>

I responded with a figure of 80%, and told you how I arrived at that figure. You demanded the basis for my calculation, which I provided. On the precautionary principle, my reasoning is sound - which you know, but you've decided to change the subject by attacking my sources.

What is particularly laughable is your reliance on the widely discredited petition 'petition' of 'scientists', while refusing to source your claim to authority. I could provide many links that expose the fraudulent nature of that supposed petition, but your behaviour here doesn't elicit such courtesy. It doesn't really matter, because anybody who's familiar with that Internet fraud (including you) knows exactly what I'm talking about anyway.

"spindoc" by pseudonym and spin doctor by vocation, I think. Shill.

Now that we've established that, I won't be feeding you any more.

Having established that, you two, you both forgot the Sun and my tomatoes and failed to establish the CO2 levels at ground zero and at 1000 meters to support the degradation of the atmospheric mantle theory by human activity as the primary cause of global warming. You are both forgiven because neither has anyone else

SpinDoc I hope you realise you will never win with CJ. I am on your side but he won't give up with his facts cherry picked from here and there. I wonder if in another life he is really a politician?

However, this thread is getting to the end and it is hoped that it is realised that Copenhagen was a complete farce and nothing but an expensive talk fest and we all paid for over 100 people to go there.

This nonsense has to stop. The politicians in this country need to take care of this country and the people. We pay them for this and only this, our country, our infrastructure.

Why should we put up with collection of our taxes to be distributed to other countries and used by them, some of them run by despots, for their well being.

This whole Copehagen thing was not about CO2 emmissions, it was about taxing people in devloped countries. Fortunately it came right at the crunch of the economic meltdown.

Ask youselves, what was Copenhagen all about? I know one thing it was not about climate change or so called global warming. IT WAS ABOUT MONEY. It was a CON...

you say, "this thread is getting to the end," and I see that was exactly your objective, nothing you have said is backed up with the merest tissue of fact but you have managed to spoil it with your braying ... bor-ring, so it goes

you've all heard the elementary school joke about which organ rules the body right?

I'll leave that with you ... be well.

I agree RaeBee, however, I’m much more interested in cause than effect. Why do so many “adopt” the opinions of others rather than take on a broad spectrum of input?

Rationalists tend to absorb information on any given topic, from wide ranging and often opposing views. This means reality stays in balance, if there is no conclusive evidence either way, realists are able to continue absorbing information until or unless there is sufficient evidence for their own conclusions.

Those who leap to the conclusions of others are left with resisting challenges to the orthodoxy of others. Because the opinion is someone else’s, they are utterly incapable of defending it.

For example, CJ quotes a link amongst many, that support the “adopted” view, a link that seeks to justify that 80% of science says AGW is true. It is the 80% that is latched on to. In fact that link basically says that 80% of 30.7% of 0.7% agree that scientists agree there is “consensus”. An utterly futile link.

The response by CJ is that I’m not just questioning the source; I’m “attacking” it, thus confirming the futility of the link.

Next, having refused to provide a link that I know CJ already has, but refuses to admit to, we have confirmation that not only was CJ fully aware of that link, we hear that CJ already has <<many links that expose the fraudulent nature of that supposed petition>>.

Then we get, my “behavior” is bad, it’s “internet fraud”, a bit of silliness poked at my pseudonym and the ultimate taking home of ones wickets with << I won’t be feeding you any more>>

CJ is a classic case of trying to defend and justify the adoption of someone else’s conclusions, when challenged, it simply crumbles. Facinating.

Quite so, SpinDoc, it seems some posters are quite ignorant and show their rudeness by putting down those who do not agree with their thinking.

Just for the record I have, over the last few years, looked at both sides of the global warming/climate change issue and have read extensively. I felt it was in my best interests to do so for the sake of my children and grand children. I don't need to post links backing my opinion as some seem to think should happen. It is my opinion and I came by it by legitimate, authenticated means.

I think the global warming alarmists are starting to lose ground and are becoming quite nasty about the situation. What is their gain or loss I wonder? Or are they just used to winning the arguement by scare tactics? It is not working any more. People are studying the facts and are making up their owns minds.

The bottom line is, if these taxes are going to degrade their lifestyle with nothing to show for it in the long run, they will not agree to an ETS and Mr. Rudd can go whistle in the wind.