re: #108 Obdicut

Yes, I’ve looked at all kinds of sites and information, pro and con AGW, and instead of bluffing that “all the answers are there”, you might want to actually read Phil Jone’s BBC interview, or indeed a mass of information that might contradicts your certitude, if that is possible.

You and freetoken might also want to stop reflexively downdinging
every posting I make on global warming (with the occasional support of Charles). I have made my points on the merits, and not without research and reflection. Try and refute them on the merits if you wish - and you might want to address points I actually make, not the usual strawmen arguments - but if LGF wishes to surmount the charge that disagreement is not welcome, and is instead an echo chamber, an openness to genuine argument on global warming would be a step in the right direction, rather than various forms of repetitive harassment - downdinging, the always offensive characterizing scepticism as “denialism, etc, etc, etc.

I’ll stand by what I’ve said in post 99, and a number of others. I think the weight of further analysis and science from many sources will confirm that humility is appropriate given the data we have and and the current understanding of causal mechanism; that the extent to which GW is caused by human activity is unclear. It is legitimate to see the issue as one of managing risk, and that includes assessing potential benefits as well as harms of global warming, and the negative as well as positive consequences of various policy options - such as embracing fraud-prone cap and trade schemes rather than carbon taxes or investment in alternative energy.

I’ll be taking a break for a while for posting on GW, maybe until there is some change in the climate on receptivity to real engagement on the issue.