lol, this is an open forum Grendel, everyone is welcome to put in their two bob's worth.
Currently we mostly get the impression that you do not have enough faith in the people you choose to trust for your information to even say who they are anymore, assuming you still do not attach any credibility to the oregon petition nonsense.

How many people in the scientific world do their best work in their dying days?
Sadly it seems to me that most legitimate scientists who oppose AGW, are retired or in their twilight days, and so to seek a cause to reignite old passion or even re-attain a lost sense of worth is a motivation which needs to be considered in more than one or two cases.

So, list away Grendel, tell us whom you trust so much that you are willing to bet the earth on their arguments.

I don't know, you are the one clearly implying there are, but refusing to list any, you won't even put up a single name to give us a clue as to who you trust, and why.

I would be grateful for a reference to a scientific paper (not a newspaper interview) in which a scientist of note declares his finding that global warming is caused by human CO2 emission.

In the meantime, I have found this US Senate page listing some converts from AGW to scepticism:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_i...

No doubt they are all old and in the coal industry's pocket.



I am not trying to dodge the sceptical line - but so what if the globe warms by an average of 2 degrees? Or 3. Beach holidays in Lappland and more sand for everyone. What's evolution for??!

The only real answer to extreme cooling or warming is adaptation...  and that doesn't involve pretending we can control the weather and climate through CO2.

Grendel wrote on Apr 10^th, 2010 at 6:16pm:


No Grendel, I seriously do not know if there are any.

I would seriously doubt it though, that is why I asked you to supply the names of these prominent qualified people whom you trust enough to form your opinion that man's activities have no effect on the climate, so naturally it follows that there is nothing man can do to change climate.

Now I strongly disagree with those last two contentions, which form the cornerstone of just about all denialist argument, so I would really like to know just who you believe is qualified in the field of climate science and holds those same denialist beliefs.

Now the fact that this is the fourth or fifth time today that I have asked, and that you have so far refused to supply any names, signals that you are not as confident in their credentials, or arguments, as you claim to be.

It seems to me that my admitting that all lay people are working from a position of choosing who to trust on this issue is a fairly obvious thing to acknowledge, and those of us who do believe the vast majority of scientists who completely agree with all the facts that muso has put in front of you, have got our cards face up on the table, whilst denialists keep making spurious suggestions that they have some mysterious scientific ace up their sleeve, well if they do then it is time to play it, or just stop bluffing.

Here's a list of prominent AGW sceptics, from what appears to be th US Senate's website.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_i...

LOL...  I note that the "seriously discredited" seems to work in only one direction for you Mozz.

BTW there are many many more people not listed there, not that you even attempted to answer my question...  answering a question with a question is NO ANSWER Mozz.

Refusing to utter the word YES... where it is obviously the correct answer, is certainly the sign of a person in deep denial of the truth.

As for your deep belief in the "Emperors New Clothes Syndrome" so apparent in this issue...  oh dear, what can one say...  sigh.

lol indeed, kenny, still too afraid to even nominate who you believe about climate change is just validating my opinion that they will be the usual bunch of wacko extremists who have been held up to public ridicule for their inane statements and dishonest tactics.

You give yourself far too much credit by adopting the term skeptic, untruthfully, and inaccurately, when you are in fact denialists, plain and simple.

Skeptics question honestly, and honesty and denialism are about as far removed as is possible.

So try and be honest and at least admit that you believe people like Plimer, and Monckton, and it is from such unreliable sources that you take your stance.