Errors happen, and it reflects the necessarily difficult terrain within which climate scientists are working. The correct response, faced with an error, is to make corrections, which is what the IPCC do. The response of charlatans and PR men is to use that perfectly ordinary occurence to obfuscate and bloviate. The overwhelming bulk of data so far accrued has confirmed the thesis. I directed you to several studies that indicate exactly that, and you are simply refusing point-blank to engage with them, or elaborate on any of your own claims.
> I beg to disagree. More to the point, the positive effects of carbon
> emissions, the increase in quality of life consequent on fossil fuels over
> the last century is abundantly clear.
You beg to disagree though you show no sign of understanding why you do so. The positive effects of using fossil fuels are obvious, and demonstrable, and no one disputes it. They are immediate, while the negative effects are not. But this does not in itself disclose anything except your own babyish solipsism: you accept the evidence that is sensuously available to you and discount anything that isn't. Children learn relatively early on that simply because mummy isn't in the room any more, doesn't mean she doesn't exist. Your own refusal to make this leap may strike you as astonishing proof in itself that nothing beyond your little world truly exists, but it doesn't count as an argument.
> But given that the case for action on global warming was first made by the
> British Prime Minster in 1990, and by the US vice president around the
> same
> time, one has to ask, if Lenin's Tomb, or Andy F, or Gar or Doug believed
> one word of it, wouldn't they have done something to reduce their carbon
> footprints?
As a rule, people actually don't do much to address known crises, perhaps in part because of the political passivity encouraged in liberal democracies. One additional contributor to political passivity is generalised confusion caused by propaganda - you know, by the likes of Hill & Knowlton (you know those guys, don't you?). But what's the sequel...?
I will be happy to answer points from any poster who has refrained from
> flying this last year. Otherwise, I have to assume that these are
> rhetorical
> postures.
Ah, well. I haven't been on an airplane for two years, I possess a bicycle rather than a car, and I try to reduce my energy use. But you know that this is not strictly relevant since it requires far more than an individual's meagre efforts to address this crisis - and furthermore, it isn't actually necessary to abolish air travel entirely to reach the desired effect (restraining temperature increases to below 2 degrees).
One other way for you to go about this would be to inquire what we are all doing to encourage the massive global transformations of politics and economy that are required to avoid the disaster that climate scientists predict. I don't think such transformations are achievable short of a massive redistribution of power, congruent with a socialist revolution. And therefore I devote the bulk of my efforts to that purpose.