Well said AJ.

There's no point in having a "debate" about this with anybody who claims to be absolutely convinced either way.

Which group is it that continues to roll out debunked or invalid aguments and half-truths and makes increasingly hysteric exaggerated claims?

Which group is entirely funded by those very deep-pocketed industries who have the most to lose from any regulation? (I see that Gina Reinhart is paying Monkton to come out for an encore tour, complete with his discredited arguments. She also has that other clown Plimer on her payroll too. I wonder if Barnaby Joyce will parade him around his electorate to speak to voters again while at the same time taking the "AGW is a fact" line on TV).

The radio shock-jocks are implying that this was all invented by Al Gore a few years ago, but the reality is that it's been studied for decades.

If it's easier to reject all evidence as some kind of deliberate fraud and believe that the whole thing is some sort of elaborate coordinated global conspiracy created just to extract taxes from a gullible public then there's really no point arguing about it. That's a crazier notion than they claim AGW itself to be.

In my case I won't be around long enough to feel any real consequences of inaction so I don't care - but I can see a "creationist- style cult in the making" when I see one and a bunch of paranoid denialists when I hear them.

If Al Whore had not been involved in the whole AGW scam,then perhaps some of us would give this theory some serious consideration.The scientists have got into bed with the Wall St ponzy,pyramid scammers.

Who will listen to them now even if they speak the truth?

AJ, ho hum, you are only proving yet again that the entire warmist argument consists of assuming what is in issue, seeking data to confirm rather than to disprove the theory - the intellectual method of religion - deferring to authority, conforming with groupthink, mistaking statistical history for theory, and of course, the perpetual fall-back of the warmist camp, personal argument. It is you exemplifying the new religion - but no doubt a bit more personal snivelling will satisfy your intellectual standards.

AJ, what makes you think anyone cares whether you believe in global warming or not? The only reason anyone would care is if you could prove that it's happening. But any request to be shown the proof, is always met with argument exactly like yours, expecting the skeptics to take on faith what you in turn have taken on faith, followed by disparagement of anyone who dares to ask for evidence! And you've got the gall to accuse the skeptics of religiosity!

Thank you Peter Hume and Jefferson for addressing me and not the points I raised, in your ad hominem responses.

Like runner, you two are also helping to convey the point I was making.

Peter Hume,

<<...you are only proving ... seeking data to confirm rather than to disprove the theory>>

Ah, but I already made it clear that I was indifferent to the whole argument and that my investigations began with nothing more than a curiosity about the whole issue along with a suspicion as to who was right. I don’t have a barrow to push and I even made it clear from the beginning that I don’t want any government action that may cost me my living standards when I don’t believe that any government action would make any difference.

But you ignored that in your emotional response and accused me of only searching for information in places that would confirm a bias that didn’t even exist.

I have consistently said on OLO that I care about the truth of my beliefs (hence the reason I ditched my religious convictions despite how much that hurt). But perhaps you’re partially right, though. Perhaps I only found information for the side of the argument that I had no reason to cling to.

So as a person who cares about the truth of their beliefs, maybe you could point me to some credible rebuttals to the arguments for AWG? I’m genuinely interested and I’m all for surprises.

In my search, the majority of what I found in objection to AWG consisted of debunked arguments that came from conservative bloggers and journalists; all of whom held irrelevant degrees in biology, engineering, etc. In fact, the only sceptics I could find who had the relevant qualifications and were still actively publishing material on climate change were John Christy, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels and Roy Spencer.

Yes, all four of them and the only four remaining from the ever dwindling numbers of relevant sceptical scientists over the last few decades.

But none of their arguments held unfortunately.

Now, I’m aware that the onus is on the believer/accepter of an idea to provide the evidence, but despite Jefferson’s emotional objection, I was simply sharing my experience (albeit in a smug way) and surely that’s in the spirit of OLO?