In the early days of internet exchanges in public forums it was called “flaming”. Back then a chat room moderator would also shut down immediately on repetition. As intense discussion develops; most adults should know the value of self moderation. It’s normally expected since there is no point in making a bad point, such as we get here with contributors continuously ranting on about stuff outside their own particular discipline.

Another issue for consideration regarding readers just browsing a blog: if individuals insist on giving nothing more than mere opinion mostly based on their single handed review of someone else’s stuff then get them putting in something of themselves from time to time.

If I want mere opinion perhaps based on some consideration of your average passer by on an issue like AGW it’s so easy. I just ask my customers or do a private survey of people I run into down the street. In fact I often ask one or two as I go. Today was no exception. Let me humbly suggest it’s the best moderator. However my partner says I talk too much on the job and the blog.

Reckon she is biased hey.

Re last comment: Yes I assume that. Bloody sepos ! We don’t mind you yanks – it’s just that you’re so bloody loud. {P.S. Can we come and shoot up somewhere new with you guys soon}

Better still – why not annex us and make us the 51st state?

What is more, us Yanks will probably do with energy technology what we did with biotechnology. We’ll invent it, we’ll deploy it, neophobes will deride it and protest against it, governments will legislate against it, and in the end, we’ll still be the most innovative, energy-efficient, wealthy nation on Earth. And that’s because we’re on balance neo-liberals, not neo-conservatives. We don’t view regress as progress. We’re pragmatists. Except, of course, for the whacko Greenie fringe who are here becoming increasingly marginalized.

After the rest of the world ameliorates global warming by 0.00000658 Celsius through carbon initiatives, we’ll have technology that makes efforts to grow more trees look pretty neolithic.

I note with interest that your rant contains no positive claim about human abilities to change the climate, what the global temperature should be, or who justly ought to be the beneficiaries or casualties of temperature adjustment.

People who don’t know what they want, how to achieve it, or whom their efforts might hurt have no business advocating anything in their back yard, much less on a planetary scale.

In fact, people that supremely ignorant should be held as far away from public policy as is humanely possible.

There’ no point in calculating colder as (a) we not facing it and (b) short of nuclear winter or asteroid impact I don’t think we could arrange it.

Impact scenarios have been undertaken for many sectors especially agriculture. Read the literature. Then you’ll say but I don’t believe the outcomes – so why ask?

“Warfare & climate control” – only a hypocritical neo-con astro-turfing yank would try that one. The most likely impact of continued emissions are beneficial to North America and not the rest of the world. Your emissions are likely turning my country into a desert – so go home yank ! And then you’ll ge flogging your carbon-free technology to us at a premium. The really clever thing is that you guys are throwing huge amounts of money at carbon-free energy and will sell it to the rest of the world at an exorbitant profit after you navigate us into the melting pot with your deliberate political inaction. Howard is being suckered right down the line with your smooth line on this one. Your administration that supposedly doesn’t believe in climate change action while going for broke on technological energy system transformation.

Nobody is proving that warmer is bad and colder is good.

Nobody is proving what the ideal planetary temperature is.

Nobody is proving that climate control will not have differential effects which amount to warfare under international treaty.

If we truly have the power to adjust the planet’s thermostat, we have a responsibility to stakeholders to say who will get desertification, and who will get a better growing season.

If you are a neo-liberal, you recognize that power creates moral responsibility. And if you believe in AGW, where will be the deserts and swamps which must ensue to give the planet the perfect temperature?

In their mind it’s their God-given right to leave the toys in the playground.

The wealthier you are, the more you’re likely to be a big emitter (or responsible for causing for such indirectly).