Bugsy, you came closest to a response, albeit based upon rhetoric. I think you deserve a separate response.

One, I did not refer to “climate scientists”, you did, please re-read. There is no such thing as a climate scientist, unless of course you can point to the qualifications and definition of same. It is NOT a cliché as you suggest and if it is “banded around” it is done so by you.

When you say “but it also gets around the fact that the scientists themselves have come to the conclusion that AGW exists by looking at the data”. You have the small (sic) problem of definition, this can be corrected by the words “some scientists” themselves have… To which we are entitled to ask, which scientists are those Bugsy?

When you say “of course the communication of scientific conclusions are 'rhetoric' in your world”. If one comes to the same conclusions as the IPCC, you can be disqualified from this 'debate'”. You mean if you follow your rhetoric and reach your conclusions; your rhetoric is not at fault? Please explain?

What you mean is if you come to the same conclusions as the IPCC based upon the stuff you accept from the IPCC you will inevitably reach the same conclusion as the IPCC. Correct! And your point is?

The rest of your post is about those who do not like “your science”. I think this pretty well sums up your position. You imply that you “own” some sort of scientific perspective and that those who do not are the “opposition’.

You need to accept that those who sold you on CAGW have now stated that this is not about CO2 or environmental policy, it is about international politics. The scientific rug has been pulled; stop looking for a soft landing. It ‘aint going to happen, you are going down with the rest of the warmertariat. The longer you leave it to bail out, the harder your landing.

Brace yourself.

Grim, “and beat you with experience”. Yep, you are getting warmer, as a useful idiot that is.

Rhetoric much?

The data is what it is, the IPCC doesn't 'produce' it. It is generated independently by researchers globally in multiple scientific units, then the IPCC synthesise it (alongside other organisations), i.e. in scientific terms, they put it together and come to a conclusion. As this is the 'scientific consensus' (an often misunderstood term), so of course it is the 'orthodoxy', i.e. the state of being commonly accepted. If it wasn't, I would be very surprised.

I see you writing the same rhetoric over and over about no soft landings, 'warmertariat' going down etc., don't be too disappointed when what you seem to think will happen (or has already happened?) doesn't actually happen or have the effect you seem to think it does. But we have all seen what happens when predictions are made on faulty premises haven't we?

It's telling that Plimer condemns Labor in the only terms that matter to him and his cohort; money. The minimifidianists have retreated finally to that since the science increasing leaves them no other sanctuary. Economics is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

If you are going to tell a lie, tell a big one; and if possible incorporate a few vestiges of truth: that is the big lie of AGW, with a few truths; ie CO2 is photoluminescent.

Every shibboleth of the alarmism of AGW has no scientific validity; from ocean 'acification', a misrepresentation in itself, to such essential but non-existent elements as the tropical hotspot, no predicted effect of AGW has occurred.

All that is left is the irony of the precautionary principle, or the insurance, "give Earth a chance" idiocy; these forms of argument are all progeny of Pascal's wager which is discussed here:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/43878.html

These arguments, the precautionary principle and the insurance approach, are what you use when you have NO evidence to back up a rational argument.

You don't insure against non-existent problems and you don't insure if, after a cost benefit analysis, it is cheaper to do nothing rather than spend resources and money on 'insurance' even if there is a problem. And that is exactly what is happening with the AGW scam.

Spindoc, wow you are powering along on this thread!

Harking back a few posts – after defining sustainable development, you wrote;

<< I’m sure you can see that unless someone actually defines (or fabricates) the “limits” of available resources, this whole concept collapses in a heap because there is absolutely no traction for the SD case if you cannot show what the limits are. >>

No no no no!

Fundamental flaw in reasoning here!

We do NOT need to be able to define the limits of resources in order for us to advocate and strive for SD.

We can see perfectly well that some resources are finite, others will just get harder and harder to obtain and will thus be more expensive and others are potentially renewable but are being overexploited, a la; fisheries and forests.

At the same time we can see the demand for all of these resources is still rapidly increasing with no end in sight.

This highly obvious imbalance is all we need to advocate SD.

SD is an eminently logical concept, in the absence of exact knowledge of what the limits are.

<< One of the greatest challenges the warmers face is that increasingly they are seen to be just a part of the Sustainable Development mantra >>

You feel as though you have somehow debunked SD. You haven’t at all!

Incidentally, I'm not a ‘warmer’. I’m a skeptic. I don’t know if AGW is real or not, but I am willing to err on the side of caution that it is.

You would call yourself a skeptic. But you’re, not. You’re a denialist! Yes?

"You would call yourself a skeptic. But you're, not. You're a denialist! Yes?"

Ain't that the truth....