Amicus,You repeat the mantra and peddle the deception of big oil etc wanting to sell more fossil fuels without restrictions.Big oil want the carbon taxes and derivatives because they can make more money on less production.They will not pay the carbon taxes,we will and they will have the capital to trade in carbon derivatives,further driving up the price of their fuels.It is a win,win for big oil.

Amicus,

If nine Doctors diagnosed your ill-health based on widespread and independent analysis but you chose to listen to the tenth one who disagreed then would that be irrational too - or are you claiming it's the motives and not the science that's behind it all?

I suppose it would come down to some sort of risk management and how much you valued your own well-being.

I think it's actually the skeptics who are publicly crying "conspiracy" more than the others.

The truth seems to carry no weight in this discussion. It has been obvious from the start that the global warming hypothesis was based upon untruths, and sustained by a campaign of lies, particularly the “consensus’ and “thousands of scientists agree” assertions.

We now have ample proof of the dishonesty of the clique of scientists at East Anglia who have fraudulently manipulated data, and warmists still cannot give up the rearguard action.

Have you wondered why, despite their fraudulent methods, the Climategate scientists are able to assert that their results in temperature align with sources like NOOA and NASA?

The sources of unmanipulated data seem to be limited to the isolated and rare honest source like Spencer and Christie.

NASA and NOOA no sooner publish data than they are revising it, and the revision always makes the globe warmer, to the extent that their spurious results now show some years since 1998 as hotter than 1998.

The explanation is quite simple. They are fraudulent to the same extent as the Hadley gang. Hard to believe, when we know the extent of the Hadley scam, where we know that they have even gone to the extent of leaving out 60% of the Russian data, because it showed cooling, and leaving in the 40% which showed some warming.

A report of the depredations of NOOA and NASA is in course of completion.

A sample of what to expect is provided by Willis Eschenbach, who looked at the treatment of the raw data from NOOA in respect of Darwin, which was “homogenised” before publication:

“Before getting homogenized, temperatures in Darwin were falling at 0.7 Celsius per century … but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celsius per century.”

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-somethings-rotten-in-denmark-and-east-anglia-asheville-and-new-york-city-pjm-exclusive/3/

Whether this will penetrate the postmodern world of the warmeciles remains to be seen. They might continue to ask stupid questions of us, like, “What would change your mind.”

There are some great posts on this thread.

Spindoc’s : http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9947#160369 is a real pearl – five star work.

Leo Lanes : http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9947#160487 is a pearler too.

And then there’s Examinator posts–not too bad, over all.
Though his real gem was his recent post on another thread.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9944#160299
which had this memorable line: “The deniers may well win the battle but we'll lose the war”

What prescience! [ ROFL ]

Actually come to think of it, most of Examinators posts are steeped in pre-science

wobbles, your circular argument and irrational grasping at straws leaves me ROFL. Why on earth would you go to nine doctors, unless you were skeptical of the first's response - just too silly for words. You try to twist what I am saying and you know it.

Risk management I understand, but it does not involve doing stupid things because the majority of people insist on it - like someone standing on the ledge of a building and the crowd calling them to jump - the people who are all in agreement on something may not have YOUR best interests at heart. Group think is not always benevolent.

Arjay, what is with this irrational obsession with Big Oil? This is very much like the US Democrats all recently believing that the opposition to their big plans was fabricated, paid for by insurance companies or oil companies or some other reprehensible profit-motivated boogeyman they'd conjured up.

They overestimated their mandate and underestimated the electorate.

AGW believers are of a similar delusion, they tend to think any opposition is only funded by big oil, or some other big conspiracy funding source - since it is "irrational" in your opinions to be skeptical. So you insist that skeptics must be consistent and skeptical about everything, which is of course - irrational.

Face it, the tide is turning and people are now questioning because of the irrational outbursts of PM Rudd and others, you folks do yourselves so much damage by your flaming and irrational outbursts, but please don't stop.

Same for you Q&A, you end off another thread asking who is funding Monckton's visit, when you know perfectly well how easy it is to find out, but you leave the question there alluding to evil conspiracies (by the Big Oil companies oooooooh). More scaring the gullible types with irrational paranoid delusions.

Though you have been as usual clever and vague enough to leave your well oiled wiggle room.

There seems consensus climate change in now about politics.

To that end a quick persual of US media, yep both left 'mainstream' and 'fair and balanced' Fox, post Massachusetts and Obama's 'Brownout' , shows zero comment, or reporting on the issue. Given the extent of the electorate's rejection of Obama's much vaunted change, his proposals to fix healthcare, his economic mismanagement and the now obvious demand Obama focus on the US economy, jobs and the US economic future I think we'll see the US totally ignore any action on climate change.

To Obama the disasters of climategate, glaciergate and the UN climate expertise coupled with the humilitation by China India and Brazil let him off the hook and are a blessing... albiet in disguise.

In the current US political scene support for 'climate change' action would be suicidal ... politically.

Now add the Europeans recent dismal performance that revealled their complete impotence ... well climate change activitism is as dead as the bird in a Kentucky Fried in most parts of the world.

Kevvy's insistence on a carbon trading scheme here will make him a laughingstock right across the world. I can't wait to see he and Wong re-present their legislation to the Senate. They'll be shredded quicker and more completely than a food parcel in Haiti.

I'm looking at the Aussie media at the moment. There is nothing written or spoken about climate change, boatpeople, labor relations Japanese Whaling, rising petrol prices, rising grocery prices, the Nth Terr. Intervention, rising homelessness, rising interest rates... or expected rising un/under employment given the latest rise in both unemployment and non participation in the US ... in Dec.

Do the editors and commentators in Aus seriously think we are not interested or that we shouldn't think about those issues. Aussie media is a joke ... feeding sport and populist crap about Australia Day and Aussies in Afghanistan.

Reading the US media things are robust and interesting and they are serving it right up to the idiots in control of the Democrats and Obama. Great fun to see them all squirming.