Spindoc

I see you have conferred on Malcolm Roberts a "professorship" - why?

"Professor" Malcolm Roberts (OLO tag malrob) silence now will be deafening.

An absent authority perhaps, or dressed in puppet's clothes?

Malrob's followers want answers to his letter. Personally, I would find it difficult to reply/address such an emotionally charged letter in OLO sound-bites, but that is just me.

It has been covered in the literature. If some so called 'post-normal scientist' wants to pursue a scientific debate by not utilising the internet's resources (e.g. linking) then sobeit - a contradiction and hypocisy in itself.

If I was to reply to this "absent authority" directly I would have to work through his emotions and delusions - the former apparent in his latest letter, the latter in his linked letter - both to real professors. For example:

>> In recent years, as well as learning more about climate I have been learning more about true forgiveness ...

Associated with the power of forgiveness, the work of Marshall Rosenberg and my own personal experience shows that knowing one's needs and identifying another person's needs enables both to find ways to fulfill their real needs ...

After understanding your needs I'm confident I will be able to assist you in meeting your needs. <<

And so on.

No spindoc, I'll give it a miss.

Incidentally, what are you trying to imply by:

"It would appear that this (malrob's letter) was accompanied by “Legal Notice is hereby given” in relation to possible “contempt of parliament” ?

Can you be more precise in this assertion?

Peter Hume
Don't be so crass, it's "Professor Malcolm Roberts".

Dear Chris, this is sensational news. I doubt we have ever had on OLO, the opportunity for a contributor to enter the debate with a clean slate on both the IPCC reports and the contrary scientific analysis now available to you.

By way of context as you begin to read these contrary opinions, it must be noted that there is only one entity in the world that has the authority for policy formulation, recommendation and governance, the UN IPCC. It has a “single” orthodoxy which is AGW and only the science which supports that single orthodoxy is used. There has never been a single contrary scientific paper included in any of the IPCC’s AR reports, see for yourself.

A single body of governance, a single orthodoxy and a single (partial) scientific source?

Perhaps you may begin to understand that the “assumption close” that CO2 has to be mitigated at all, is giving way to the public challenge of why?

Enjoy your reading but please get back to us with your conclusions.

bonmot, actually the reference is to an open letter to a wide range of public figures and policy makers, I don’t understand why the source blog-site has any relevance? Would it make you happier if Greg Combet made public what he has just received?

I seem to recall you being invited to respond to these questions previously and that your response was “why should I?” to which we might say “why not?’

Predictably you are upset by anyone reading contrary science and you telegraph this to Chris by trying to trash what you see as that threat.

You have the opportunity to impress Chris by answering the challenges. You might save him much reading.

Chris must be wondering why so many AGW advocates on OLO are refusing or incapable of responding, he may just regard your “warning off” as justification for much more reading on this topic.

Amicus,

With all respect, i do not refer to anyone in this article as a denier or extremist. If such words are used in this article, they refer to someone else such terms.

Am I not able to also report the debate?

I've just read Malcolm Roberts' piece. Not helpful, although some of his points are correct. It is couched in such emotional language that no-one who isn't already across the issues is going to take it seriously, and even then with some difficulty.

He's right that Garnaut wildly exaggerates, but wrong to couch his criticism in such terms.

spindoc @ Wednesday, 30 March 2011 12:50:11 PM

I am aware of your “open letter”, you referenced/linked to it.

You obviously saw some relevance to “Legal Notice is hereby given” in relation to possible “contempt of parliament”.
I didn’t so asked you to clarify, you haven’t.

If you don’t understand why Malcolm Roberts’ blog-site has any relevance, why link to it?

You could have just as easily linked to AR4, the primary source, which is relevant.

As to the Greg Combet quip: there is a due process to lodge and review submissions, spindoc. You/malrob seem to want to subvert it.

I am not “upset by anyone reading contrary science” (despite your assertion) – I do it all the time. And no spindoc, I did not deter Chris from visiting malrob’s blog-site – in fact, I wished him well.

Ok, you invited me to “respond to these (malrob’s) questions previously and that your (my) response was “why should I?” to which we (spindoc et al) might say “why not?”

I gave my reasons then, and now above. You may understand Graham’s reply better.

Spindoc, I don’t need to impress Chris. I am certainly not going to appeal to an “absent authority’s” open letter.

Anyway, I am sure Chris has the capacity and the ability to make up his own mind – notwithstanding he hadn’t gone direct to the primary source.

To conclude, spindoc:
You confer, refer and defer to a “Professor Malcolm Roberts” (aka malrob) – numerous times.

Why?

Graham, it is unfortunate that Roberts’ contribution does not read as a scientific document.

There is a point of view that the important aspect is to have it published and quickly, but that is the view of the Climategate miscreants, and was expressed in relation to a refutation of a study, in respect of the well settled science on climate cycles, which did not suit the AGW agenda.

They wished to publish a refutation, and they wished to publish it quickly. They made an improper approach to the president of the body which published the Journal in which they wished their unsustainable study to appear, little realising that the email crowing about it would be released for the world to see.

“Mike is President of AGU. Basically this is an acceptance with a couple of suggestions for extras, and some suggestions for toning down the rhetoric. I had already tried that a bit. My reaction is that the main thing is to expedite this.
Kevin Trenberth to Grant Foster, September 28"

A reviewer of Foster’s paper, said that it was couched in very unscientific language. This was even after they had “toned down the rhetoric”

It gave the AGW pushers a temporary advantage because publication of the comment in reply which showed the Foster study to be of no substance was stalled, by the new Editor of the Journal.

This sort of writing and behaviour is, no doubt, instrumental in the AGW scam falling apart.

I find Malcolm Roberts’ effort quite helpful in his organising so many relevant items together. His temperament is no doubt Feeler, and if the document were edited, abbreviated and rephrased by a Thinker, I believe that it would be quite valuable.

bonmot, I hope you realise that by continually returning with nothing of substance to advance, and indulging in petty irrelevant nitpicking, you underline the absence of any basis for the AGW assertion. I repeat the invitation to you, extended many times before, to supply any scientific basis for the AGW proposition, or perhaps explain why you continue to believe an unsubstantiated myth.