Haven't changed have you, Col Rouge?

The same about Thomas Aquinas when you couldn't believe that he gained a Sainthood for telling Christians to place their feet squarely on earth to get out of the Dark Ages.

All you have to do right now is realise that man became capable of buggering up the Planet with the advent of the Industrial Revolution

As a philosopher as well as a Preacher, Aquinas could have warned about that also.

Which medication and for what should Ludwig be taking it? Evidence would suggest his comments more reasonable than most.

One might ask on what scientific basis are current negative, ad hominem comments?

I have noted three failings that commonly in the 'nay sayers' posts.
- ad hominem and unreasoned, unexplained responses.
- Lack of scientific proof that GW IS NOT happening. The best they can offer is that the the most accurate, reliable data set *maybe* too short to be *absolutely* definitive proof of AWG on its own. Neither does it prove the very broad *precision* free paleontological (geology) perspective either. Geology is a retrospective science not a predictive one, therefore, the time frame is 'emphatically' too short.

The real telling difference between the two is that the observable (provable) facts are not explained by the geological (its natural, so ignore it) perspective, but AGW does.

The best examples are the glacial retreats, speeding up of ice shelf melts ant the subsequent decreases of Arctic/ antarctic ice depths and mass.

The natural process to replenishment of these is historically thousands of years (ice age timescales).The consequence of this melted ice is both obvious and insidious, complex.

FYI Places like Peru/India largely rely on these 1000's of year old glacial ice caps for fresh water.
Without this ice being replenished much of the feeder areas will turn to desert. It is a no brainer to deduce that air blowing over hot desert will alter weather pattens etc.(basic physics, meteorology)

In summary while the AGW is far from *absolute* it is orders of magnitude a better fit for the observable facts than any other scientific option.

In that, and I would suggest the most logical context Ludwig's musings are far wiser than the extremes faux logic that is indicated by both phoenix94, RPG and many other "faux sceptics"(deniers).

Pontificator “In summary while the AGW is far from *absolute* it is orders of magnitude a better fit for the observable facts than any other scientific option.”

Really?

How about the notion that “Ice ages” have “come” and “gone” in the past
What about the idea that the earth’s orbit around the sun fluctuates and thus is subject to a warming which has nothing to do with anthropogenic activity

How about the whole ball of wax is just a scam being promoted by the snake oil qualities of the ex-presidents of USA off-sider

A lot of people believed Enron where the “smartest blokes in the room”

A lot of folk believed Bernard Madoff’s “spin’

A lot of folk think L Ron Hubbard a messiah and “scientology” is a religion

And a lot of folk think AGW is “a better fit for the observable facts than any other scientific option.”

And on a best fit scenario, they are all

WRONG

“Socialism by Stealth” is an equally “better fit”

(actually I could explain AGW using selective quotes from Lenin... and I might just do that)

Col I can understand your "socialism by stealth" position and I even sort of agree with you that it is a part of the "green" movement.

Given that it is the wealthy that overwhelmingly deny climate change while the middle class and the poor overwhelmingly agree with it and support the changes needed to fix it, I think there may be something in the "watermelon" tag used by the many of the deniers.

People for some reason have been convinced that the current capitalist economy is the only way and have accepted that they cannot change it but deep in their hearts they dont like the unfairness, impersonality and viciousness of capitalism and competition and so have jumped on something (climate change) that they see may be a way to moderate and restrict some of the excesses of the capitalist system.

This to me explains many of the people, on both sides, who have no scientific or academic experience but who have very strong convictions on the matter and dont mind letting the rest of us know.
I hope I dont come across like that. I make it quite clear my hatred of capitalism and the rich and powerful that benefit from it and most of my posts even the ones on climate change are openly from that angle. Be more honest on both sides and it will be a very interesting debate.

It explains why people dont want to trust carbon capture/clean coal etc. Everyone recognises it is designed to keep electricity generation in private, capitalist hands. Even if it is government owned it is still centralised and people feel they are dependent and at the generators whims. The vast community dont like this feeling and they are happy to jump on a bandwagon of "anti" whatever to try and get something they can have more control over.

People are sick of being slaves to capitalism and looking to climate change policy, which as Col says is very socialist, as a new and justifiable (to themselves) way of moderating capitalism and its excesses.

Excellent Article.
The fact that it deals with global warming does seem to have elicited a number of pavlovian responses; responses which manage to ignore the substance of the argument and trot out the usual AGW denial comments. If they read it more carefully they would realise that it is far more supportive of their position than they realise.
The author makes two important points. The first is that the solution to the problem of global warming is seen as the whole of humanity working together to save the planet. She argues that this will simply not happen. (It also puts the kybosh on any suggestion that the article is proposing a socialist takeover of the world - again there is plenty of evidence that she regards any venture of that sort as doomed to failure.)
The second point she makes is the legitimate concern that we will take the technofix road - we have developed almost a cargo cult mentaility to science assuming that it will solve all of our problems.
The more I think about the question of climate change the more I realise that for ordinary folk like me it is not about climate change at all - it is about the fact that I am disenfranchised from controlling my own future. Just think about how dependent we are on oil and electricity for our survival. 50%+ of humanity live in cities -totally dependent on huge infrastructure for their energy, water and food supplies. In response I have gradually implemented changes so that I am no longer dependent on this huge infrastructure - the technologies exist to live a 21st lifestyle yet be independent of the power grid and grow most of your own food. That those actions also reduce my carbon emissions to almost zero is just a byproduct; even without any suggestion of climate change it would be a good thing to do - I value my freedom.

As a retired old Cockie who in 85 years has experienced luxurient natural wooded lowlands turned into saltlands, and since become sad with the news that our Globes' most valuable natural jungle country will need to be cleared to feed future mankind, feels kind of glad that he won't be around to witness the end.

But probably the saddest thing is to experience so many of our OLO contributors still arguing that Nature can fix up what man has done to the earth since the beginning of the Industrial Age.

I would have preferred to have said what Man has f-cked up in this World, as an old Cockie like me might naturally say.

Cheers, BB, WA.