No doubt Rusty you would like me to read many of the now debunked myths of evolution. Getting through them would take a life time. I really would be wasting my time as the latest 'find' will again replace the last fraud that you have such difficulty admitting to. My time is much better spent reading the inspired Word of God which never changes and still has the most logical explanation for origins. Really don't like your High Priests being exposed as frauds do you Rusty?

Horus I have never doubted the fact you are a bright person.
You caught me out.
And nothing you said here changes my mind.
Here however are my reasons for not agreeing with you.
I think you found two examples of wrong statements in a whole report.
I understand some, on both sides of the debate fudged results and used untruths.
I think global warming is true.
That increasing human population, just in the last 100 years, and use of machinery, in about two hundred, has played a part.
I think we are not doing well with environmental issues, all of them.
And want both sides of the house to do far more, stop radicals like the greens owning it and hiding behind it.
It is my honest view we will see both side on track in about 20 years, and ETS in place in most of the world.
And yes history writers, my age will not let me see it, will regard those who say its just one big tax as fools.
Those real Australian workers can be from any back ground and yes will suffer more than the rich,,, but even more if nothing is done.

Horus,
Statement like those in your response show you either don't read what I say or anything outside black or white is beyond your competence to grasp.

>"But the IPCC & co has been caught fudging , fixing and making false predictions (and the IPCC holds the welfare of billions of people)"<.

The misassumptions, lack of understanding willful or otherwise clearly betrays you for what you are on this topic.

You either just don't want to know the truth or you're so ill informed. Advice, is so inaccurate it's almost libelous.
But that their problem.

My issue is, that you don't know where I stand and frankly, your misunderstanding is insulting.
Sigh, for the record again .
I don't support the clear cock ups (archery term look it up) of The IPCC bureaucracy .
Nor do I condone the errors of one scientist at CRU but it needs to be seen in perspective, of the amount of damage it actually caused in the science.....two cents worth of bugger all.

Glacier gate was a bureaucratic error i.e. the 35 year time line. Not the state of the glaciers/Tibetan Plateau and consequently the major rivers. Ive posted the sites before.

Poles melting, I've posted the sites with pictures maps details before.
BTW those are as up to date as last week. Even yesterday science daily had more indicative evidence.

Note *I do NOT give uncritical absolute allegiance to AGW/ACC*

I simply maintain with all it's 'flaws', trivial as they are, it is still *more explanatory of *ALL* the new data/facts, than alternatives presented so far*. It is sufficiently convincing to suggest we can't afford to wait untill final confirmation, when ever that is.

If that sounds like hedging, it is. Science theory never tells it as absolutes, merely probabilities....which are relatively high.
Sensible conclusions, are never black or white, if they are then they're probably wrong.
Having said that, I don't expect any more half cocked (flint lock term) accusing me of what ever.

Runner,

You are clearly unaware that evolution hasn't been debunked.
You wouldn't know as you *don't read* original articles or other scientific literature. Cursory examination of the only quote you actually reference shows you to be ignorant of the real content.

You read books by pathetic second-raters who pick over the work of real mainstream scientists for little tidbits to "tickle your ears".
It sells well because religionists are pathetically eager to imagine that scientists somehow endorse their views.

Your comments on science are the fishwife carping of those not competent to be let drive.

Go back to your church and fume all you like. The world cannot do without science, but it could do without fundies. Except pastor, pastor couldn't do without fundies.

Rusty

Enjoyed this article I read on the ABC Drum site, putting some common sense into the entire debate:

"Current science says that humanity would be unwise to emit more than 1 trillion tonnes of carbon over the entire period of industrial civilisation, yet we've already used up about half of that long-term 'budget'. So, the sooner we start to cut, and the deeper we cut, the more likely humanity is to avoid really serious climate disruption and its many unpleasant consequences.

Further, we really don't know how fast or hard we CAN cut back, or how much this will cost. Sure, we can look at ways to increase the efficiency of our energy use, and we can consider the current economics of 'clean' (low-carbon) sources such as nuclear, wind and solar energy. But are these options scalable? Can we build them fast enough to replace fossil fuels and yet maintain a reliable electricity supply? Will the rest of the world follow our lead, even if we do succeed?

To have any hope of answering these questions, we need a realistic plan for implementation. Not just 'the market will fix it' dream, but an energy plan that achieves our desired goal, is likely to work in the real world (that is, it relies principally on established or demonstrated technologies), and is economically feasible. The plan then needs to be executed, via directed and sustained action.

Clearly, this will require bipartisan support - at least in terms of agreeing on the general need for implementation - even if the details are up for political 'fine tuning'."

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2834489.htm?WT.mc_id=newsmail

Cont'd

Cont'd

Further excerpt:

"Finally, it must be technology neutral. All systems that meet certain underlying goals (low carbon, safe, able to effectively manage waste, sustainable, and so on) should be allowed to compete on a level playing field. A plan that says "no nuclear" or "no carbon capture and storage", or one that imposes severe regulatory burdens on some technologies but not others, is really risky. Why? Because there is a good chance that the cheapest and most efficient solutions will be ruled out on ideological grounds, or for short-term political convenience: always a bad idea.

My considered view is that nuclear power will end up forming the backbone of any effective real-world clean energy plan, but I'd be just as happy if other prospective technologies, such as concentrating solar power or enhanced geothermal systems, are able to take a major role.

Yet, even if you disagree with my plan (or anyone else's for that matter), you shouldn't seek to 'block' any qualifying technology. And if you wish people to take your plan seriously, you must be prepared to tell them how much it will likely cost, what sort of support it will need to be put into action, and consider its implications for electricity grid stability, energy storage and sustainability.

In short, real-world energy plans have to work in the real world. Does yours?".

The author to the above article makes a lot of sense.

Does continuing to waste our natural resources, using up non-renewable fuels and polluting our environment sound like a feasible plan for the future?

To anyone?