pss:

byork, you have just proved my point. A casual sceptic (aka you) bases their view on climate change, AGW, human induced climate change, whatever - on ideological perspective.

Thank the powers that be we have people like the Governor of California and the President of the USA and the Premier of China, really trying to do something about global warming.

I thank the powers that be we have the likes of Rudd and Turnbull who also want to tackle the problems of climate change, whatever.

Unfortunately, the hardliners in the conservative camp, and a few in the liberal camp - want to play politics. You are no different.

Thanks for the link Peter the Believer and I see the author, Jon Christian Ryter (aka Christian Writer)refers to and has written excerpts very similar to an article published by James M. Taylor, senior fellow of The Heartland Institute.

Jon Christian Ryter is a pseudonym for a one-time reporter for the Parkersburg, West Virginia Sentinel, who wrote a syndicated column called “Answers from the Bible,” and is now a contributor to a far-right wing website called News With Views.

And has this new-age Nostradamus got a hotline to heaven?:

His article, “Has Anti-Christ Arrived” advises:

“Antichrist will be a devout Muslim……We can be certain, however, that the man—regardless of how corrupt and evil he may be—will not be the Kenyan Muslim Barack Hussein Obama.

"While Obama is definitely a Muslim, his ancestral roots do not give him the lineage through Mohammad to Antiochus IV Epiphanes to Esau to Ishmael and, finally, to Abraham to claim the birthright to the deed of inheritance of the Promised Land.”

“Definitely a Muslim?” “Evil and corrupt” eh? That’s a pretty vicious and unsubstantiated attack on Obama by one of your denialist “Christians”, Peter.

I'll continue taking my information from reputable climate scientists thanks.

Protag, your last post - who would have figured?!
Your catalogue (or sleuthing skills) never cease to amaze.
We don't always agree (but mostly we do).
I'm glad you're here.
Cheers
qanda

interesting how the protosoreass when refered to an artivle on clobal warimg cant rebut the actual article...but keeps on digging till he can rebut something

then the qanda idiolises his resque-er..yeah great revelations...great rebuttal of the topic...[not]...lol..great redirection..[to quote a previous post...lol

Thanks Q&A but the contents of Byork's posts remind me that you cannot give some people more information that they are prepared to accept.

UOG - I offer my apologies for I'm not multilingual therefore, would you mind writing in English so I can respond to your post - there's a good lad.

When Sancho says that I "appear to know almost nothing about this topic" and rely on "straw men and insults", I am tempted to return the 'compliment'. But I prefer to debate (and still await evidence from Sancho as to why CO2 is a pollutant rather than an essential source of life).

It is an attribute of religious thinking to be condescending and hostile to those who challenge received wisdom, and Sancho and Protagoras are fine examples of this. They, along with Q&A, are probably much more comfortable among the like-minded (at 'Church'). Q&A dismisses me as a "casual sceptic" while seeing ideologues everywhere but in his own mirror. Q&A, you are as ideological as me -just try to debate.

Another attribute of the religious way of thinking is the 'laying down of the law'. Q&A does this in textbook fashion by pronouncing: "Double the concentration (of CO2) to 700 parts per million - life as we know it is stuffed". I don't know what job Q&A does, but he couldn't possibly be a scientist to pronounce like that. A scientist - well, one in the best tradition of science - would at least insert a "maybe" or a "likely" or an "as far as some of the research suggests".

There is a real debate among qualified scientists inside and outside the IPCC about the role of CO2 - or "carbon pollution" as the believers insist on calling it - in the 0.8 degree global warming of the past 130 years and the idea that 700 ppm will stuff life as we know it highly debatable and probably incorrect. I will post again on this but do not want to exceed the 350 word limit in this post.

Sancho and Q&A can afford to be smug and dismissive only because they reflect the views of those in power in our society.