Global Warming denial an article of religious faith | BBC

[Welsh cake]

Some well documented examples of human induced climate change that just immediately spring to mind, would be Londons famous fog, the dust bowl here in the states, Big sugars draining of the glades and the subsequent change in flora, fauna, and yes, even rainfall in S FL.

While this depends on your definition of climate change you will appreciate an anticyclone settling over a windless London in the winter of 1952, that caused a temperature inversion with cold, stagnant air trapped under a layer of warm air, that prevented pollutants such as sulphur dioxide from being dispersed as normal DOES NOT constitute as human-induced climate change, no more than the recent freezing fog grounded all air traffic at Heathrow Airport two winters ago.

I'm not disputing on how we can damage the local environment, ecosystem and our health via pollutants, that's demonstrable, but when for example naturally occurring phenomena such as lighting striking an oilfield causes a notable impact we do not automatically assume such events as supporting evidence for human-induced climate change, that's just daft.

I don’t really believe that is possible, if by faith you mean without evidence you haven’t personally verified. I’m never going to verify the existence of the Amazon jungle but I accept it’s there.

But you CAN verify the existence of the Amazon jungle if required to for whatever reason. You're missing the point of what I was saying.

I accept the bridges I drive over will support my vehicle.

Right, and what I'm saying is that *simple observational skills* can be used and are employed to verify whether that bridge is structurally sound or not. I don't accept the bridge will support me on faith. A very brief inspection of these two bridges will tell you whether they are worthy for rail traffic, and I didn't use any faith at all to work which one is unfit for purpose:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bermudafan8/219357059/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alaska48/3976416262/

No, faith gets thrown out the window with the illusion of absolute certainty, the chocolate saucepan and other such useless and asinine concepts.

A majority of people smarter than me, without a history of lying, without much to gain from lying say it would be best if we cut greenhouse gas emissions, I think it’s sensible to listen.

I can't speak for others but I'm not saying I'm ignoring their claims, on the contrary, we are discussing them right now.

Australia exists, at least that’s what we call the thing we walk on around here, it all could be a joke at my expense.

There you go, independently confirmable by Australians, and not by faith.

I thought their purpose was to review existing research. Can’t we find a better reason to discount their conclusions, sex, bribery, alien interference or red menace?

IPCC carries out no original research and will be discounted.

Well that would depend on by who, why and how they have been criticised.

Indeed but I have a wall that's not going to build itself and I'm responding here out of politeness, so if you want to investigate these criticisms by all means knock yourself out, perhaps you will enlighten me on what's being said next time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC

they are seeking to proselytise and scaremonger; they’re not giving me the impartiality on the subject I require.

Not giving you impartiality? Well why not read the thousands of papers the IPCC reviewed and come to your own conclusion.

IPCC carries out no original research and will be discounted.

Beyond reasonable doubt is a high level of proof, balance of probabilities will get you dollars in a civil case. The world won’t sit still until you’re satisfied.

Come again?