DWMT if you can't understand simple points.

I'm not gonna waste my breathe explaining and refuting every strawman and misinterpretation you guys keep coming up with.

Oh and BTW it is well known that greenies have used that event to push the Global Warming scare campaign anyway...  

oh and...

http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/08/cnn-money-against-newsweek.html

Poor old Jim Hansen god of global warming (also monetary and kudos beneficiary)...  1998 was such a favourite year of his too.

Cant refute the facts just try misrepresentation and ridicule...  oh dear muso...  sorry but it wore thin on me last time 'round.

I have no desire to go off on another pointless tangent.

I made my point.

Either it is right or wrong...  your ridicule proves it was right.

As are many other points made that have received the same treatment from you by many people.. you can only fool some of the people some of the time muso.

Another point... scientists and climatologists who once believed now don't.  

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42

oh and an interesting read...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/290507Warming.htm

at least for me and other people undecided or skeptical.

Unless one is an extremely well versed, senior scientific mind, then we all are in the same boat, of having to make value judgements on the information supplied to us on the basis of trust.

We choose which arguments and information we trust, based on the record, and credentials, of their proponents, and the relative consensus of peer, professional support that their arguments receive.

This seems like a reasonable way to filter what is believable and what is not.

So why do we see the hard core denialists going against this trend and choosing to side with those, whose arguments do not receive validation, or even respect, from the vast majority of the scientific world?

Is it just "contrariness"?

When the vast majority of scientists, can cite reams of information, which all point towards one logical conclusion, is it reasonable to take the side of the very few dissenting voices who claim to have unverified proof that a different, in fact, opposite, conclusion is really true?

Whilst we see serious scientists, being open to all information, and openly sharing their conclusions for peer review and critical analysis, we then see the denialists continually rehashing their tired, previously refuted claims, as their proof, then proffering misinformation as debate, then we must question either their motives, or abilities, and in many cases, both.

An issue of such importance, with such far reaching implications, was always likely to struggle to gain acceptance from people who divide themselves over minor political and ideological differences, yet the consensus has been such, that even this hurdle has been cleared, with governments, of all persuasions, accepting the science that has been explained to them, and agreeing that it is a real and critical issue which they must address.

So we have the scientific world, the political world, and the general population, all choosing to listen to, and accept, the consensus of opinion on Global Warming.

On the other side we have the denialists, who choose to summarise the consensus as some kind of trick that is being manipulated by an unnamed cabal of evil scientists, for some unknown reason.

Why would anyone seriously entertain such a ludicrous, unsubstantiated notion ?

Why would normally rational, intelligent people, latch onto this contrary opinion and irreconcilably wed themselves to it?

I suspect that it is an intransigence for many, who chose a side early in the debate, and are unwilling to admit their mistake in backing the wrong horse.
That is understandable, in the context of false pride and pigheadedness, I just hope that their vain promotion of misinformation does not add to further delay the taking of appropriate action.

Mozz,

You seem like a fairly clear thinker. Did you follow the argument I made about the Solar irradiance results and the fact that the recent warming and CO2 figures in  the past 50 years show a lack of correspondance to the relative lack of change in the irradiance figures?

That, together with the data that shows that we're dumping 7.1 gigatonnes of CO2 per annum into the atmosphere, cinches the deal.  

That together with the Greenhouse effect makes it virtually conclusive, especially since we can measure the effects of different greenhouse gases.  

I just can't understand how people fail to understand that point.

I have a theory that people other than scientists 'switch off' as soon as anything vaguely scientific is discussed.

Point 1 for beginners...  name people if you post after someone and you aren't referring to them or their post.

Point 2...  recent is relative...

Grendel don't you think it's a bit ironic that you keep telling people not to waste your time, while at the same time pulling out absurdly childish arguments, like the one where you choose the points on the graph to get the trend you want from? How is that any more intelligent than saying "frost this morning, therefor no global warming"?

muso...  well you think it did.
BTW the term used was official "skeptic"...  and there are other qualifiers but hey...  it don't matter to you, as long as you think you scored some huge point. 

just foolin yourself there...