Those areas are (in pats mind) reserved for the stewards of nature-the yuppies.

Actually, those areas are reserved for the most whacked-out leftists, filthy hippies.
I understand it is a political movement, designed to give the self-anointed elites more control over the economy, which is exactly what the anti-capitalist want. If it means they have to follow the Goreacle’s teachings, without questioning him, and become members of the Gormon Church, they will gladly do so.
I don’t think Pat Mohamed really believes what he claims to believe, but has so bought into the idea of destroying America as we have always known it, he will say and do anything to advance the gorebal warming agenda.

Never mentioned in activist and political propaganda is the growing conviction among scientists that human influence on climate through the use of fossil fuels is negligible. Nor is the fact that the IPCC’s political arguments rely significantly upon climate projections from computer models that, unless prompted with corrections, contradict reality.

A leading figure in relation to the activities of the Real World Coalition recently stated (Ref. 2) that “the latest data about climate change is fast exceeding our worst fears”. Many of us do not accept this view due to the lack of convincing scientific evidence for it and the mounting evidence against. Accepting that climate change has been occurring throughout the earth’s long existence, the big question is to what extent is this affected by human activity, particularly the use of fossil fuels.

One comment in the ensuing debate on “Globalism & Regionalism” (Ref. 2) was that “If nothing else can we not at least use the climate change debate as a way in to the re-assessment of our pollution footprint?”. This could be suggesting that even if significant anthropogenic global warming is a myth, then use it anyway to promote the cause – the end justifies the means. Alas, this is already endemic within many groups to further their chosen causes. In some cases this does relate to causes involving our pollution of the environment, but not always. Politicians (including the UK government) and others are (ab)using the anthropogenic climate change issue to further their own individual vested interests, regardless of whether there is any validity in the arguments for and against this issue.

Knowing you are a moonbat wearing an asshat, it is understandable you would accept and support the anti-economic growth approach.

Unlike you, he is capable of reviewing and understanding the research that has been performed

Of course he is, he’s got a doctorate after all!! How can 95% of the world’s geophysical scientists disagree with him?!

n2L – You can link to deniers all day long and you’ll never come up with enough credible skepticsm amounting to anything worthy of serious rebuttal. If any of the authors of these articles were doing independent research or informed critiques and publishing those findings in scientific journals, then they would be judged by the exact same standards of proof required of climate change proponents, but they’re not. Only then could their propositions be honestly evaluated. But you and I know that’s not gonna happen because it’s not really their function in this debate. The industry that created the astroturf stratgey of which these deniers are an integral part needs only to inject tiny seeds of doubt into the public consciousness in order to promote their own self-interest, a much easier task than proving their counter-claims through the scientific method.

In this context, all competent scientists accept (i) that global climate has always changed, and always will; (ii) that human activities (not just carbon dioxide emissions) definitely affect local climate, and have the potential, summed, to measurably affect global climate; and (iii) that carbon dioxide is a mild greenhouse gas. The true scientific debate, then, is about none of these issues, but rather about the sign and magnitude of any global human effect, and its likely significance when considered in the context of natural climate change. To date, and despite spending more than $50 billion looking since 1990, no evidence has emerged of a worrisome magnitude for human-caused global climate change.

Professor Bob Carter.

OK, I’ll play along with the anonymous coward. Please point me to some research that establishes Deming’s credentials on climate. Left by Pat on April 9th, 2009 at 10:35 am

And I’ll play along with the lady who just got the ass pounding. Where is the primary research on climate change that you have performed to establish global warming?

Hate to break it to you, Patricia, it’s not necessary for Deming to have performed primary research on climate change. Unlike you, he is capable of reviewing and understanding the research that has been performed. As previously, stated, you do not.

And please don’t lecture anyone on being driven by a political agenda. I doubt you can take a whizz with out injecting politics into it.

Now, drop your pants, bend over, and wait for jonny.