Graeme M,

Just to bring you up to speed...

runner doesn't believe in the Theory of Evolution either.

Poirot

'runner doesn't believe in the Theory of Evolution either. '

congratulations you are becoming a little more open minded. At least you now acknowledge it as a theory unlike other deceived ones.

You do keep sticking your foot in it. You should try somewhere where there is not so much cr4p lying around Poirot.

Your quote, "No wonder psychologists are having a field day investigating the processes involved in denialism." Did you not notice that that lot had their paper chucked out, after that dreadful Watts man poked it so full of holes it sank. I don’t suppose that made it into the propaganda sheets.

I believe there is some consideration of misconduct with that lot.

You must try mixing, & reading, with a better class of people my dear

Well Poirot, I'm not sure I believe IN the theory of evolution either. As a theory it offers great explanatory power, but does that mean that I should consider it an article of faith? I think I could be readily persuaded of the veracity of an alternative theory should it show greater predictive and explanatory capacity. Remember, the theory of evolution is a human construct to explain observable physical phenomena. I'll accept it as a very close approximation and perhaps if I were a scientist in that field I'd accept it as almost fact. But believe IN it?

And that's where I come from with AGW. It's not a FACT, it's a theory. And so far, many of its predictions (at least as I understand them from the non-specialist media) have not performed as robustly as one would like for it to be treated with greater confidence. Add in examples of groupthink and coercive behaviour such as is evident from the climategate emails and my own observations of public debate and it encourages me to at least to investigate with a much more open mind to that which most 'warmists' display.

That said, bear in mind I am just an average Joe with a pretty basic education. One thing that I have enjoyed from my reading about AGW is that I have actually learned a LOT and been exposed to an amazing range of complexity. And regardless of the extent of any scientific malfeasance or misdirection, I admire their minds to be able to 'get' this stuff, right or wrong as they may be.

Hasbeen,

"Did you notice that that lot had their paper chucked out..."

What do the words "...The article has not been retracted or withdrawn..." mean to you?

http://www.frontiersin.org/Personality_Science_and_Individual_Differences/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00073/abstract

You're a hoot, Hasbeen.

Graeme M,

Very well, I don't expect you to believe "IN" the theory of evolution as an article of faith (I think you realise the point I was making about runner, in that he rejects evolutionary theory as an explanation of our origins)

It's useless me arguing the case, basing my view on science and linking to those who can explain it in layman's terms. You've raised just about everything that every other skeptic/"skeptic" I've ever encountered has raised. What say you? Mention climategate, or the hockey stick, the warming pause...and apparently AGW is skewered - regardless of exonerations or more complex scientific exlpanations.

You're right that the systems which dictate the Earth's climate are incredibly complex - which is why I tend to lend veracity to the people who are trained in the areas associated with climate science - and also why I shy away from conspiracy theories and blog sites run by people without those qualifications, who promote shonky science.