[militanttoby]

What a dunce Cannon is .... he says we should unite and agree on “...the credible theory” of AGW.

Given the ENORMOUS impact on living standards, the dislocation and trauma on people living in energy producing regions, income re-distribution from the wealthy to the poor, the income distribution from the rich nations to the poorer nations, the devastation on countries that rely on carbon emmitting energy for their wealth, and on global trade, the huge effort rshaping economies, shouldn’t we be a bit more certain than simply a “credible theory”?

I have a theory that Cannon is suffering from cognitive dissonance and should give up writing articles. Surely he can’t argue about credible theories?

[MrB]

Given the ENORMOUS impact on living standards, the dislocation and trauma on people living in energy producing regions, income re-distribution from the wealthy to the poor, the income distribution from the rich nations to the poorer nations, the devastation on countries that rely on carbon emmitting energy for their wealth, and on global trade, the huge effort rshaping economies, shouldn’t we be a bit more certain than simply a “credible theory”?

Are you kidding? THOSE ARE THE GOALS!

[equalitybeforethelaw]

the credible theory” of AGW.

By definition a theory has be a question that can be proven or disproven. Pray tell, what data, or experiment, will prove or disprove AGW? If you can’t prove it or disprove it, it is by definition not a theory, but a belief. This is the basis of all science. Belief, the knowing of the unknowable, is what is referred to as religion. There is a vast difference between the two. Now, how do you prove or disprove AGW? Can some smart person tell me?