If AGW were really such bad science the scientific establishment would have found the holes in it and accepted the holes in the theory a long time ago.As it is, the oil companies spent millions on attacking the theory to try and protect their profits and used the same advertising agencies and tactics as were used by the smoking industry for years after the links to cancer and heart disease were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The same advertising agencies were used by the oil companies to try and hang on to the use of lead in petrol/gasoline, again putting profits above the public good. Even had I no scientific education, that information would make me very suspicious of those denying AGW.

I am well aware of the difference the THC current stopping would make to Scotland. Indeed, some of the scenarios predict this as a result of AGW and would paradoxically make the UK and Scotland in particular much colder in the medium term despite global temperatures rising.

I think I will after today, just follow this thread rather than commenting any more. I have read several dozen well referenced scientific articles that support my view of what is happening to the climate, indeed a number of them are referenced on these forums. As I pointed out the cosmic rays you referred to lag climate changes so causality seems unlikely there.

Rather than justify lies in a Robin Hoodesque initiative (with WOW MASSIVE FINANCIAL BENEFITS to you) why not face reality and provide us with science that is sound and quantifiable and good for humanity

I also take issue with the above. I have no vested interest in being right, indeed, financially I would probably be better off if wrong about AGW. Indeed, your attitude in denying the opinion of the vast majority of scientists whether or not they get any funding for work on this makes me wonder if you have vested interests in the oil industry. That along with your hiding behind a pseudonym.

Regards,

Dave