The Cloud Mystery, 6 parts, 52 minutes. (switches over to English narration after a few minutes.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKoUwttEOBA

By all means vigorously discuss the concept of AGW but don’t for one moment try to connect those who remain unconvinced, with those fruitcakes who still try to stand aloof from the actual physical evidence of the extermination factories discovered towards the end of WW2.

Not really – it’s rare for a majority to believe something so obviously false, but it is perfectly possible for a politically significant proportion of people to do so; for example, that does seem to be the case in the US.

Such indefensible positions are like the military equivalent – if you keep air-dropping in supplies, you can keep them going as long as you have money and resources to burn.

It’s hideously expensive, but those pushing that line do have that kind of money to spend.

Then a poll showing people either supporting or rejecting global warming denialism is irrelevant.

“Polls say they’re also willing to pay more in order to deal with climate change.”

Ah, but will they vote for it though? Like people who say they’re happy to pay higher taxes then go and vote Tory. Have the questions asked whether the particular individual is happy to pay more or do they just specify “people” generally (which may cause the person being questioned to assume someone else will be paying e.g. car drivers or the rich).

Polls say they’re also willing to pay more in order to deal with climate change.

Just shows that pollsters can get any result they want by the way in which they frame the questions. These have to be about the worse ever.

Not surprising you think that since all you want to do is pretend the opposite is true. But in fact most polls show this result every time. Even the recent Times poll, which they tried to portray as otherwise, showed most people were worried about climate change.

See: recent post by climate sock for both points

Have you read any of Unity’s posts on here?

There is really no arguement worth having about the fact of AGW.

The arguement now is about what’s to be done about it. Which is a political debate.

So I’ll pay more tax because of my 20 year old central heating system than someone wealthy enough to replace his roof with solar panels or build his own wind turbine?

How about ‘are you willing to see taxes moved from how much you earn to how much you pollute’? That might be a good one.

Then get people to vote on it.

For example it is quite possible to agree that “world leaders are trying to tackle the most serious threat facing mankind” (in a worse case scenario, mankind is wiped out) and also with “the world’s leaders are panicking about an exaggerated threat” (as generally happens when people posit Armageddon theories).

In fact I do.