Will the sceptics step up for roll-call please?

I think the word you're looking for is deniers.

"Skeptic" What a crass corruption of the proper word. Also, while I'm on etymology, Surely Peter J you meant to write "Affect" not "Effect?"

Now, as member of the semi-pedantic sub-branch of Christendom, I would like to add the following...

I do not believe that it is one nor t'other of any "effects" upon this atmosphere/ecology/geography Etc that is the all-encompassing doom of mankind, these individual aspects are but system components that either give a plus or a minus to the ENTIRE environmental paradigm that within we can exist. Lovelock called it Gaia... And that is it really, if one system component (out of a myriad of known and unknow) is allowed to perversely deviate from the optimum, then a systemic shift occurs... If that shift is severe enough (Of the entire System) then we are in deep shi7. As a cascade effect alters component after component detracting exponentially from the "sweet-spot" that humans need in which to survive.

But do NOT confuse this with any concern that nutters show for polar bears or some other isolated component... It is the SYSTEMIC effect that terrifies me.

Are you out there?

Yes we r.

Is it true that you all agree that we should do nothing?

To stop the climate changing? yes because there is nothing man can do. as a side not though i passionately believe that we should protect the environment.

Has climate-gate has justified your objections to reducing carbon output?

who is objecting to a reduction in carbon output? most skeptics believe carbon output should be reduced. just not as drastically as u and not for the same ridiculous reasons as u.

Do you get hot under the collar when lefty liberals, perhaps I'm one, get all sentimental and moralistic?

no. im a lefty liberal

Do you really think all this was cooked up by the hippies and the nerds?

no. it was cooked up by crafty shrewd business men who seized on your stupidity for their phenomenal monetary gains

Humans don't have the resources to control the climate. But that doesn't mean that I think we should do nothing. That's hyperbole. Yes, I think environmentalists, Malthusians, and greedy opportunists (in some cases they are hippies, but no nerds, who are more often sceptics) are behind the propaganda of Global Warming. There aren't any changes in the climate to which we can't adapt, and with fewer resources (less expense) than the Global Warming solutions. Their PR is all wrong, admit it. They deal in panic and scare tactics.

the world is warming, yes. is man causing it? I do not believe so. The climate is far from a static condition and you would be a fool to believe it would stay the same for any decent time interval at all. It never has before.

Given that climate change is the norm and warming appears to have been trending before the possible impact of humankind's activities, I think the onus is on the proponents of AGW to demonstrate the impossibility of the change being natural. Computer modelling is insufficient. Inherent to the modelling concept is a presumption of cause, so it is simply a matter of tweaking the effects of the presumed cause to arrive at an imitation of short term behavior. This does not demonstrate that the presumption is correct, although it does allow that presumptive cause to be a POSSIBLE explanation of the observations, which is not the same thing as demonstrating it as THE explanation..

Oh, and I am a fairly liberal guy. I just think that the science on this particular subject is weak.

Yes we are, in a day the APS will be looking at a petition from their members to stop this nonsense of supporting the AGW issue without evidence. The board of the APS will take up this consideration this week and announce if they will fund a (finally) non partison study on AGW.

All true scientists should be skeptics which sets them apart from those on this site who block people just because they believe differently. Science is never settled and thus why your arguments are in vain. The scientific method will prevail and your religion will die just as it always has in the past.

What the world does with the politicians who made laws that hurt people, the scientists who committed fraud for bucks, etc. will be left up to the experts in that. They should pay for the damage they have done to mankind for just another radical environmental issue that will again be proven incorrect.

.

Dear Tomas,

Do nothing? No. Instead, let's all run around screaming about how the world will end in ten/twenty/fifty/hundred years (delete as politically convenient). This is standard Green extremist strategy, as the very first Friends of the Earth newsletter, distributed with the Ecologist of 1972 made clear: QUOTE

--------------------------

"To our mind a sense of urgency, of immediacy must always be maintained so that the vital get-out-and-do-it approach to life does not give way to sterile theorising. (Theory, of course, is the first requirement. But it must be followed with action.)"

http://www.theecologist.info/page26.html

-------------------------

Gotta keep that sense of urgency, ey? Don't want people to actually stop and think, to question the predictions and threats that back up the taxes and levies which we're all paying right now.

All credit to them, though, FoE have kept a sense of urgency going for nearly forty years now. No mean feat. The world will end soon . . . ish.

Doing something for nothing is called flailing. It is for insane people or idiots.

I don't worry about my carbon output. That is something that AGW cultists worry about.

I have no doubt you are a leftist but I doubt you are a nerd. Nerds are generally informed.

Can you spell "skeptic?"

AGW is nonsense. CO2 is plant food. People are too insignificant on earth to effect the climate.

No this was cooked up by people who like to be afraid all the time.

Read about Paul Ehrlich... he's still talking now about global warming.... why would anyone believe him?

in 1968, he said this... "the battle to feed all of humanity is over ... In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now."

When I was in grade school and high school they were trying to scare me with global cooling.

peter j; can you use a dictionary? the questioner is using the English spelling.

As Copenhagen proved, politicians have lost interest in global warming, being the masters of knee jerk reactions, they no longer see votes in it , so it will be relegated to the back burner until the fire is extinguished completely, in the not too distant future.

Good riddance.

We can then get on with life without this fictional problem dogging our every waking moment..