For about the third time I say it then, my post addressed specifically to you today summarises all that I think is illogical about your position; and provides plenty of evidence to support that assertion.

Therefore, if you post any more comments here (in this thread) I will ignore and/or delete them. You have been warned.

BTW, is there any reason why you continue to post comments here as opposed to my subsequent posts (including the one addressed specifically to you- I decided not to wait until midnight)?

But that is not how science works, nor do your sources like Bickmore suggest it. More specifically, science is about disproving hypothesis. That is what a good scientist does. Formulate a hypothesis, and then attack it from all sides. Then submit it to the scientific community to be further so attacked. Then, after that, if it stands, we have made progress. And, it might only stand until further progress is made beyond that. That is good science.

That is also what a good citizen does also. But, as Bickmore cautions, it is important to get information from the right place. Agreed. That is why I try to get to the actual scientific basis rather than just citing “Wikipedia.” [You clearly have not read my subsequent post that is addressed specifically to you - ML]

“You continue to insist that it is necessary to question one of the most well-documented scientific facts of our age (namely that excess CO2 in our atmosphere is the primary driver of the accelerating climate disruption that is now taking place).”
Martin, that is not the consensus. And, yes, I absolutely insist that it is necessary to question this before, as you suggest, moving to a “zero-carbon global economy.” I will tell you exactly why in a bit, as we can’t address every AGW issue in every post.

1. You continue to insist that it is necessary to question one of the most well-documented scientific facts of our age (namely that excess CO2 in our atmosphere is the primary driver of the accelerating climate disruption that is now taking place); and I am only trying to make you see sense that this is no longer a defensible position to adopt. Far from seeking it, I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that you are, as Bickmore puts it, trying too hard to avoid the truth.
2. I may not have linked to my EM post before, but the quote from Arthur Mol contradicts your stated opinion that Capitalism and Environmentalism are not necessarily on a collision course. Yet again, I repeat, I welcome the fact that you are concerned for the environment; but this does not change the reality that economic development tends to cause environmental degradation; and that pursuit of profit tends to make industry demand less environmental regulation (as per all current GOP candidates for POTUS).

So, why don’t you leave the sarcasm to one side and falsify these arguments without reference to psuedo-scientific misinformation being peddled by the fossil fuel lobby (if you can)?

Certainly, you seem unable or unwilling to address any of mine.