contd

I am not a scientist so I cannot say the scientists are wrong. What I do say is that based on my own reading and thinking, AGW as a theory is proving lacking. I have read plenty of information that shows flaws in the idea. And I observe no shortage of 'predictions' that have failed or have been later modified now "that the science is clearer". Clearer? Or just wrong and now adjusted to suit?

Is QANDA quite confident that Nikolov and Zeller's proposal holds no water? Is he/she quite certain that present day warming is not in response to solar insolation driven cloud cover variability? Personally as I've said before, I like their proposal as it is just a tidier theory. can I judge it scientifically? No.

So it's just my opinion. As indeed is that of most sceptics. The big question of course is to whom should government listen? And there's only one answer to that.

Let's just hope the sceptics aren't right eh? Although I think on balance, I would prefer that they are...

"Let's just hope the sceptics aren't right eh?"

No, Graeme M, let's hope more that the non-skeptics are wrong, because if they are right the world is not doing nearly enough. If you had to bet your children's lives, which is the pragmatic position?

I must say, for a person who keeps claiming to have no scientific bent, you seem to have quite a bent.

PS, re my challenge to SM, which he failed quite as expected, you wrote "Well LF I think if I spent a little time on the challenge I could probably find such a statement....". Well please do. People who make statements are responsible for backing them up when challenged, not the challenger.

I didn't say I don't have a scientific bent LF. I love inquiry, especially scientific enquiry. But I'm just an average guy without a degree so am no intellectual heavyweight.

The pragmatic position? Surely pragmatism suggests taking a more measured approach. After all, we can't affect the environment on our own, so why not wait until the big players have actually moved? In any case, the A in AGW depends on there being significant positive feedbacks and I don't think the case has been made well enough for that.

The challenge... OK, I might have a go at it. I have a bit of spare time this weekend so will see what I can do! You may be right in that it has never been stated so categorically but I think it is most certainly implicit in all I hear and read. Still, the challenge is to find it explicit, so I'll see what I can find.

Graeme M, it should be easy to find as it is "the single biggest lie perpetrated by Labor". I would start my search here https://www.liberal.org.au/labor-tells-lies

What are we to do?
I have stopped posting links about faster wind speeds and any thing that points to change in our climate.
Because they are invisible to some.
Content to charge the worlds science with fraud, yet unable to think *did interested folk*
Oil and such, start a theory? every bit as believable to me, more so, than saying science lies

WHY?
What then is behind half the world lie ing ?

Graeme,

Don't worry LF is no intellectual heavyweight either, after getting whipped, the best he can do is deny it. We are still waiting for you to provide one interview with one Labor Polie where he admits that climate change in Australia is not directly affected by the Australian carbon tax.