(continued)

Your faith in science and technology to save us has got to be the joke of the century. Climate scientists are all evil, corrupt, conspiring commies but genetic scientists and crop scientists and nuclear scientists well they are just the saviors of us all and will easily solve the problems we create and we wont have to change a bit.
And WTF is "technology will have been developed that will make redundant the use of water for mundane daily chores."? No more showering or baths for you mate. what are we gunna be dry cleaned or something. Bloody laughable.

Your comments about luddites is another foul right wing example of a straw man as no greenies hate technology and science. Thats the province of you richers and the godbotherers. We all believe in science, ALL OF IT, not just the bits that serve our interests or have been fabricated to do so.

All up a seriously illogical and dishonest article and not really worthy of OLO.

copenhagen: the script for a disaster movie...one where the human race fails to listen to the voice of reason, one where greed and denial reign triumphant.

Whilst climate change scpetics desperatly hold onto the fantasy that nothing has changed in our world, our environment. The earth is not getting hotter, people are not affected by changes to the earths atmosphere.

The ending to this disaster movie; if climate change scpetics get their way; global warming, soaring temperatures, uninhabital climate for our children.

"Copenhagen: the script for a disaster movie"?

Indeed. It reminds me of Kevin Costner's 'Rapa Nui', which was, as I recall, a disaster of a disaster movie about the self-destruction of the complex society on Easter Island by its inhabitants, who refused to change their way of life even though they could see it was destroying their island.

Maybe Don Allan has a point concealed in all that other crap.

You have summarised the "old and ignorant" position quite well I think.
this "logic" is just: I expect things to go in the future just as they have in the past *by my experience*.
Whilst not a bad rule of thumb for personal decisions, it is not a wise approach to large scale issues: Many civilisations before us have collapsed due to environmental overconfidence: (Jared Diamond's "Collapse" is worth a read, though it is long-winded.)
Yes, ignorance allows you to apply "common sense" and disagree with the experts, but don't expect the rest of us to respect this position.
The science is now pretty solid: what to do about it is not. I believe a lot of "sceptics" will soon realise they have been duped by confusing the science of what is happening with the politics of what to do about it.
The Right has very little regard for the truth, so they will attack the political issues whilst also trying to undermine the scientific issues. Just as a decade of leadership from these folks has bankrupted the US, we would be wise not to let this approach break any chance of making the transition to a warmer world comfortable and gun-free.
(Not hoping for a world without guns, just a climate transition without warfare)

BTW. Well said Mikk!
Taking science when you *dont* like the results is most important!

As Terry Pratchett said: "Science changes it's mind a lot when new information comes along. If this concerns you, just imagine all the trouble caused by folks who *don't* change their minds when new information comes along"
Common sense is not a good guide, you must develop it by exposing your brain to lots and lots of real *data*. This is why scientists often dedicate their whole life to a subject and why the church has *never* had anything useful to say about science.
High falutin opinions are *not* data!

Ozandy "Taking science when you *dont* like the results is most important!"

Couldn't agree more, which should be the new motto for the boys at CRU, who didn't like the results so "fudged" them, their words. Who didn't like the peer review process, so got it changed to their liking.

For Al Gore with all his mistakes in his powerpoint movie, that our schoolchildren have to watch without being told of the mistakes.

The person at Wikipedia who changed nearly 5,000 entires to suit his evangelical position - didn't like the facts.

You wonder why some people are skeptics when we see such trickery when people don't like the results. If the science is so clear, why do all these people need to be tricky?

It cuts both ways of course, but let's face it the skeptics are not asking you to pony up money or to redistribute the worlds finances on some Quixotic quest to compensate the have nots.

Some people are using the whole climate change thing as a route to socialism, see Chavez's standing ovation at Copenhagen, and care nothing really at all about the science.

The climate changes, yes it does, are we contributing, possibly, can we stop it - oh come on, that really is delusional. You might as well try to convince us you can stop tectonic plate movement as well.

Changing the climate to our will is way beyond mankind right now, screw it up, maybe, but control it - not yet.