For goodness sake, there is no point in having this argument until the
IPCC runs its computer model against the realistic quantities of fossil
fuels available.

Even if the AGW theory is correct, it may not matter anyway as the fuel
to generate a problem level of CO2 may not be available.
Just wait until they run the new figures.

Yeh Bugsy, too much cutting and pasting I guess, sorry again.

I didn't actually say you accused skeptics of being unintelligent, what I did say was "almost every AGW Advocate on this thread telling skeptics they lack intelligence". No I'm not going to name anyone, we can all read the posts.

I didn't see anything in your post that addressed the questions I tabled? Are you going to have a stab at these?

Bugsy:

Well said. Professor Tor Hundloe tells us in his book,"From Buddha to Bono," In Australia in 2006, leading climatologists with the country's pre-eminent public research organisation, CSIRO, were forbidden by the organisation's management from publicly discussing the implications of climate change. Management was acting on behalf of the government. And Australia is one of the standout countries in terms of human development status. It is not corrupt. Its science is world class. None of this matters. In 2006, the Australian Government's position was to cast doubt on global warming and refuse to enter into UN agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol. With the release of the Stern Report on climate change, the Australian Government's position had changed - yet the Prime Minister remained half-hearted about a commitment to counter global warming." As I wrote in my earlier post, little had changed in near to 400 years when ignorance and vested interests are confronted by scientific facts. As Hundloe states, "While Galileo's and other wonderful discoveries were being made, not much had been learnt by the political elite in 2000 years since Socrates' murder by the state."
There is one position however even more culpable than denial. That is to accept that it's happening and that its results will be catastropic; but to fail to take the measures needed to prevent it.

Bugsy, Blue if we did not question orthodoxy, among other things, we would still be worshiping Egyptian, Greek, & Roman goods.

We would still be running around naked, throwing rocks at things, trying to get something to eat.

Our doctors would still be running around with a scalpel, & beaker, bleeding people, to try to cure cancer.

We would believe the world was about to go up in flames, because your "betters" told you CO2 was bad.

Thank heavens we are not all that dumb.

Lexi, a very nice diversionary post with subtle navigation away from the issues. Your post however, seems to crumble at the end with, << There is one position however even more culpable than denial.>>

We’ve done this “denial” bit pretty well on this thread but just in case you missed it, the term denial is valid only if you can point to the “empirically verifiable reality” being denied and the “radical and controversial ideas” being alternatively adopted.

Without these the term is just a form of abuse, it has no relevance.

So not only do you have “denial”, it is now “culpable denial”. If you want to use another expression of abuse that is actually more valid, can I suggest a contribution from one of my grandkids, it’s so much more meaningful. “Potty potty poo poo”

Your sentence now makes much more sense and reads “There is one position however even more culpable than “Potty potty poo poo”.

There, so much better don’t you think?

Hasbeen.

If mankind gets this wrong, there wont be a second chance.

What gives man the right to gamble with planet?

BLUE