@ spindoc:

I asked about the 'C' in the acronym in the CAGW acronym, precisely because I'd noted its insertion into the mainstream debate recently. Most people I know and read refer to the phenomenon as simply 'AGW', for Anthropogenic Global Warming. Now that you've clarified the matter, I can well imagine that it's a term that is in use by the denialist camp, presumably to emphasise the more extreme claims made by a minority of proponents of AGW. Spindoc by name, spin doctor by nature, eh?

As I see it, those who predict the catastrophic global warming upon which you'd like to focus are the equivalent of AGW deniers who not only reject global warming, but claim that the Earth is actually cooling. There's extremists on both sides of any argument that becomes political, and I've learnt to disregard them as a matter of course. Of course, most of us who accept the vast weight of evidence for AGW don't think that the world is going to end tomorrow, while undoubtedly most of you who reject it don't think we're about to be beset by an Ice Age.

With respect to Monckton, the cancellation of several of his performances doesn't constitute political censorship - rather, it's a recognition that it's unacceptable to more discerning venues to host rallies by hateful buffoons who like to falsely accuse others of Nazism, and display Nazi regalia at those venues. As someone who accepts generally the weight of scientific evidence for AGW, I'd personally rather that Monckton get as much exposure as possible for his idiotic ideas on climate change, essentially because I think he does more harm to the denialist cause than can any amount of hard evidence could.

Lastly, in terms of the abusive language in which the 'debate' is framed, I would have thought that a cursory glance at any of the innumerable threads about AGW at this site would show that the deniers are winning the abuse stakes hands down. I think that spindoc is being a tad precious here, but then again that's his self-described job, isn't it?

@Morganzola,

<< With respect to Monckton, the cancellation of several of his performances doesn't constitute political censorship - rather, it's a recognition that it's unacceptable to more discerning venues to host rallies by hateful buffoons who like to falsely accuse others of Nazism, and display Nazi regalia at those venues>>

Nice try Morgan –but the petition specifically mentions that it was his views that they found *threatening*-- not any Nazi jibes!

And if you are consistent --which I seriously doubt-- then I expect you (and those petitioners) will be calling on the IPCC chairman,
Dr. Rajendra K. Pachauri to be similarly boycotted for likening Bjrn Lomborg to Hitler:
http://www.globalwarming.org/2004/04/27/ipcc-chair-trots-out-hitler/

rstuart

This is what spindoctor is referring to:

http://tinyurl.com/tis-here

Monckton did attend the privately sponsored (by mining billionaires) event.

You may also want to look at this?

http://theconversation.edu.au/monckton-and-notre-dame-a-case-for-free-speech-2104

It addresses spindoctor's post. He thinks it's personal, he is wrong.

He can comment and engage there, he chooses to spout nonsense here.

You may also find this engaging:

http://theconversation.edu.au/pages/clearing-up-the-climate-debate

It's better to work together rather than be negative and divisive.
bonmot,
yeah, right. As long as as the worker continues to foot the bill.

rstuart, giving me spatial analysis on climate change is worthless, did you look at the parameters set for the graphed input?

This is the cooling I referred to that even the ardent but intelligent warming advocate cannot dispute, the unintelligent of course will dispute it as that is what they have been programmed to do.
“July 6, 2011: The Associated Press is reporting today that scientists believe one explanation as to why the earth’s heating trend stopped in the last decade is due to China’s excessive use of coal-burning power plants. As reported by the Associated Press:
Read more: http://www.prisonplanet.com/scientists-admit-climate-cooled-in-the-last-decade-cite-sulfur-pollution-from-china.html

“This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. So what on Earth is going on?”
Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8299079.stm

WASHINGTON — Has Earth's fever broken?
Official government measurements show that the world's temperature has cooled a bit since reaching its most recent peak in 1998. That's given global warming skeptics new ammunition to attack the prevailing theory of climate change.
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/08/19/74019/drop-in-world-temperatures-fuels.html#ixzz1RZTP43Om

Monchton is not taken seriously in the UK and British journalists are surprised that he would be - here in Australia.

As for "Freedom of Speech," if one wants to raise this issue on a public forum - then one should expect that there will be opinions that differ from one's own. "Freedom of Speech," does not only apply to those who agree with you.

The pollution problem is an exceedingly difficult one to solve, for several reasons. First, some people and governments see pollution as a regrettable but inevitable by-product of desired economic development - "Where's there's smoke, there's jobs."

Second, control of pollutions sometimes requires international co-ordination, for one country's emissions or pesticides can end up in other countries' air or food.

Third, the effects of pollution may not show up for many years, so severe environmental damage can occur with little public awareness that it is taking place.

Fourth, preventing or correcting pollution can be costly, technically comples, and sometimes - when the damage is irreversible - impossible.

In general, the most industrialised nations are now actively trying to limit the effects of pollution. It's the populous less developed societies that are more concerned with economic growth, and tend to see pollution as part of the price they have to pay for it.

As we've seen in this country control of pollution is politically difficult, for the economic interests behind polluting industries are a powerful political lobby and are reluctant to commit the necessary resources to the task. The only way is to force them to do so - which is what our current government has decided to do. Sunday will give us the details on how this will be done.