Anybody that thinks global warming is caused by humans is a pillock, a numpty, and a fool.

It's easy to claim that humans are responsible when you fake the results!

Human development comes before worrying about a climate that will naturally change of it's own accord regardless of humans.

"Human development comes before worrying about a climate that will naturally change of it's own accord regardless of humans."
Close to a total non sequitor. Whether or not global warming is human caused or not the effects of global warming on the environmant and its carrying capacity cannot be ignored. If the CONSEQUENCES of global warming (whatever its origin) means that this planet will not support "development" for its current human population, perhaps will not even support its current human population at even minimal levels of sustenance, that would be rather serious. Arguing whether or not human caused is of relevance mainly among those who believe that if human caused we would be able to reverse it. Many believe already far too late for that.

So cut the cr*p. If you think "development" is possible then it's not a matter of your not believing climate change is human caused. You must not believe climate change is happening (for whatever reason). Or you simply don't believe material reality defines boundary conditions possible.


"Anybody that thinks global warming is caused by humans is a pillock, a numpty, and a fool."
Gee, name calling. Well guess what. I couldn't care less about what YOU think of the general consensus.

"It's easy to claim that humans are responsible when you fake the results!"
ROFLOL -- if you think the recent "revelations" were about "faking results" then you simply don't know much about the academic community. Damaging yes, because it is normal to present themselves as science purely for its own sake, scientists above things like personal ambitions, personal dislikes, and petty squabbling. But let me assure you, "office politics" isn't absent from academia, never has been.

As a matter of fact, "personal" considerations tend to exaggerate the amount of "opposition". To succeed in academic life publication is crucial. No questions in science are ever "closed" and so it is always possible to write a contrarian paper questioning the general consensus. Since there is less competition for such papers, better chances for a prominent publication good for one's career. That works out well for science in the long run because SOMETIMES long held consensus needs to change.

While most intelligent people understand that the environment is a major concern... it should be kept in mind that there are certain parties that may be inclined to "hijack" the environmental debate for political purposes.

It seems to me that people like Al Gore and other politicians... including those in the UN are trying to use 'global warming' as a way of imposing an extra tax on people. The EU has already reported the loss of billions of pounds that was supposedly collected to help the developing world... where has it gone? I suspect the same will happen with any 'carbon tax' that is collected.

The world and the environment belongs to ordinary people, not politicians and businessmen. Let us assert our authority and change the world for the better.

I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. - Professor Bernardo de la Paz, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, by Robert Heinlien

Robert Heinlein shared the same stream of proto fascism as Ayn Rand freedom for the ubermensch and trample on the sheeple

your references show where you come from but reality just isnt like it is in your fantasy books thank goodness

@proto fascist - you're off base - TMIAHM is the only Heinlein novel in which he seems to be developing some kind of anarchist philosophy... albeit much closer to us-style libertarianism.
Mind you, if you want anarchist SF you'd be better off with LeGuin...