Dear oh dear examinator, what a jumbled post you write.

Between 1798 and 2008 there have been 26 “disaster predictions” including the CFC’s you mention in passing. Each of these shares two key characteristics. Firstly they were all completely wrong and secondly, there share identical analogous hall marks with AGW.

Your challenge is simply to show how AGW is “different”. If you cannot do this then we know it is “the same”, just another politically motivated scare. In which case you do not need much effort to identify which side of politics will benefit.

Your circular arguments not only identify the weaknesses of your case, they are becoming contradictory which, I might add, is a consequence of trying to sustain the unsustainable.

Cornoncob “fancy that a right wing website saying AGW is not real.”

Just as every left wing-nut site proclaims AGW as the next terror

Which conforms with my summation of

Socialism by Stealth

At least AGW is resolved as a big fat Zero and we can get on with real issues

Like how to contain world population numbers

Then how to enhance the life quality of fewer people, rather than sharing the poverty equally among more

Which is the essence of right versus left politics

The right is focused on people making the most of their lives, for themselves, their families and through that (6 degrees etc) the wider community

The left is focused on ensuring no one is allowed to benefit from their personal efforts and all are required to aspire only to some level of common mediocrity.

Then we have all the techno-scientific inquisitors who believe the heretical “Deniers” should be silenced for the common good

Well that was asked of and answered 40 years ago by the renowned politician dearest Baroness Margaret Thatcher simply

"Individualism has come in for an enormous amount of criticism over the years. It still does. It is widely assumed to be synonymous with selfishness...But the main reason why so many people in power have always disliked individualism is because it is individualists who are ever keenest to prevent the abuse of authority."

AGW is about using "bogie man" politics to scare people into surrendering their national autonomy to some totalitarian “world government”

The collectivism is the enemy of the individual

As that well known collectivist, Lenin, said

“When there is state there can be no freedom, but when there is freedom there will be no state.”

AGW is just another name for the bogie man, what dearest Margaret described in the past as

"Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited."

Mikk we are better off a slave to capitalism than the state –

lots of capitalists, to move between

but only

one state

*I would like to suggest farmers start putting more carbon in their soil.*

Michael 2, I would like to suggest that you are well out of date.
Farmers don't need to start, as technology in farming has changed
dramatically in the last 25 years.

In WA for instance, something like 90% of crops are grown using
no-till/deep-till. The net result of that is better use of
rainfall and fertiliser, increased soil carbon levels etc.

That means that with the same amount of rainfall, crops can now be
grown, which would have died from so called drought, under the old
systems.

I've noticed that Eastern States farmers too, have now caught on
to the idea and are copying WA farmers.

@ Loudmouth It’s not a straw man just have a read of some even on this site. I quite clear separate Sceptics from Denials, they are different animals. I was quite sceptical of Global warming from some time, what I did was research the science and become convinced. When I say research I actually read some climate science journals, when it was raw and still up in the air. I thinks this is the bit that Denialist just don’t get, all they have to do is read the science journals over the last thirty years to see how the body of climate scientist have got to where they are. Now you can say what you like about green groups I’m talking about the science community. Sure there are dissenters not many of which are working Climate scientist, but if you look the slurs that are hurled at them are the same slurs that are cast at Biologist. Just have a read of a few anti evolution web sites. The common theme is right wing conspiracy nuts ie Col. Col and his like would have everyone believe that all the scientist are working together to pull the rug over everyone eyes. Anther symptom is to say that alternative theories are being suppressed, that’s just wrong as well, again even a cursory reading of climate journals will reveal this not to be true. What has happened is climate scientist getting sick of untrained denialist wanting to punch holes in climate science by going over excepted facts over and over again, without doing any of the grunt work themselves.

Col it’s probably a wast of time but three simply facts.

CO2 is a green house gas, without it we would not be here.
CO2 concentrations have risen dramatically in the last 200 hundred years.
Man is the reason the CO2 levels have risen.
Even you can connect the dot after that.

@ Yabbie well said, but SA farmers are the best dry land farmers in the world ;-P

Spindoc,
Hope you had a good festive season.

The post in question needed to be read in the context of the one that so upset Col.

I made the point that both AGW and the Geologic counter suffer from the same flaw, that the 'blip' time frame (160-100odd years) isn't long enough, to be Absolute. Although, AGW's *basic science* shows that Anthropomorphic change is (a) primary cause (smoking gun)that explains the observable facts.

NB. AGW science, according to the 'natural' argument, can't show an emphatic trend line. This is due, in part, because of the lack lack of definitive measurements therefore, the use of proxies. Additionally, given the complexities of feedbacks and natural absorbency levels (natural auto stabilization processes), tipping points, a irrefutable trend line is a tall order.

A recent scientific paper (23/12) blamed... the CFCs effect on the upper layers of the atmosphere (ozone hole etc). As yet the hypothesis hasn't been through the mill and given I'm not a scientist or involved astrophysics, prudence suggests leave it in the mix.

Notwithstanding, it all appears to come down to
-the significance of the last 160 yrs increasing reliability of measurements

- How well both hypotheses fit the current facts.

IMO The 'deniers' argument at this stage don't meet the above criteria.
- they don't address or can't scientifically explain the provable observations in context of the current 'blip'(the effect of humans and all their wreaked changes).

- their basic science i.e. physics (save the above paper) doesn't gel.

Conclusion. While there maybe some (small that it appears) doubt, AGW
does seem far and away the best fit, as it stands today.

Give the probable consequences I reason AGW is the most reliable
Therefore I agree that technofixes are inappropriate as a solution on their own.

Thanks Yabby
That is good news although organic carbon has a very limited life. Unfortunately we don't have a good pyrolysis-to-charcoal set up in Australia so can't make organic carbon work much better by adding low temp. charcoal, harvesting the energy and sequestering the CO2 in the soil for thousands of years.
Please tell me I'm wrong here, I would love to be.