Wilkins ice shelf breaking away?

Moth

Rattled? Maybe, but not for the reasons you imply.
I didn’t imply any reasons; I simply asked why you were rattled.

a cringingly pathetic piece of rhetoric
(Rhetoric - the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing OED). I made a couple of statements and asked a question.

The earlier wounded pleas for fair assessment of your point of view at least had some hopeless logic to them. But that that simply isn't a reasonable expectation.
Wounded pleas? Hopeless logic? Apart from the fact that I made no pleas wounded or otherwise, that sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

If you had read my posts, you would see that I have not made any arguments or even expressed my own opinion (except on no cooling for 10 years). You couldn’t on that basis know what I thought.

It makes me sad to see so many accepting the Gore line without ever having heard any opposing arguments. You will not see those arguments on the BBC where most people get their news.

How can people know there is another side to this? How can we as a society make informed decisions? Decisions which will cost billions and affect us for decades to come. Those decisions had better be right and not based on fiction.

Debate is important. Calling people half-wits because they take a different view is not helpful (that wasn’t you Moth and I think it’s since been deleted).

  Without proper debate we (or the US) get this: 

“WASHINGTON (AP) — The EPA on Friday declared that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases sent off by cars and many industrial plants "endanger public health and welfare," setting the stage for regulating them under federal clean air laws. The action by the Environmental Protection Agency marks the first step toward requiring power plants, cars and trucks to curtail their release of climate-changing pollution, especially carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Friday's action by the EPA triggered a 60-day comment period before the agency issues a final endangerment ruling. That would be followed by a proposal on how to regulate the emissions.”

But the politicians and bureaucrats are out of whack with the people of the US:
“Just one-out-of-three voters (34%) now believe global warming is caused by human activity, the lowest finding yet in Rasmussen Reports national surveying. However, a plurality (48%) of the Political Class believes humans are to blame.
Forty-eight percent (48%) of all likely voters attribute climate change to long-term planetary trends, while seven percent (7%) blame some other reason. Eleven percent (11%) aren’t sure.
These numbers reflect a reversal from a year ago when 47% blamed human activity while 34% said long-term planetary trends http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/environment/energy_update

How did we get here? I suppose politicians are briefed on IPPC reports and get no counterbalancing arguments so they believe it. I hope the IPCC are using the top scientists in their fields but perhaps they aren't -

“The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is very particular about the scientists it selects to investigate the health consequences of global warming. Those the likes of Paul Reiter needn't apply.
"Prof. Reiter heads the Insects and Infectious Disease Unit at the Pasteur Institute, famed for its founding by Louis Pasteur in 1887 and the eight Nobel Prizes that its later scientists received.
“As Prof. Reiter testified to a U.K. parliamentary committee in 2005 (about his own field), "The paucity of information was hardly surprising: Not one of the lead authors had ever written a research paper on the subject! Moreover, two of the authors, both physicians, had spent their entire career as environmental activists. One of these activists has published "professional" articles as an "expert" on 32 different subjects, ranging from mercury poisoning to land mines, globalization to allergies and West Nile virus to AIDS.
"Among the contributing authors there was one professional entomologist, and a person who had written an obscure article on dengue and El Nino, but whose principal interest was the effectiveness of motorcycle crash helmets (plus one paper on the health effects of cellphones)."
The full written evidence is at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we21.htm and is an insteresting read.

Also interesting is Climate of Fear - http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220 - By Richard Lindzen Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT