Leo Lane,

Saltpetre does NOT believe Ms Gillard in much of anything she has to offer, least of all the efficacy or essentiality of the carbon tax, nor its proposed usage, nor the ETS scheme. Saltpetre has in fact made many posts to such effect.

Leo,

On a global basis it appears you may be rejecting any possibility that anthropogenic CO2, and other emissions and human activities, can have any significant effect on climate, on the recession of sea ice, on oceanic acidification, sea level rise, glacial shrinkage, or the extinction of species. You perhaps prefer, or choose, to associate such phenomena solely with land use, deforestation, urban and city development, ruminant burping, and natural climate cycles, volcanic activity, plate tectonics, and solar radiation. All of these and other factors are surely at play, including those of human influence and inducement. My interest and concern is in the effect, and in the possibilities for amelioration, rather than the apportioning of blame for causation.

There is possibility that AGW science has been an attempt to address the evidenced deterioration of life on earth, by pursuing a thrust to adopt a more environmentally responsible approach to continued human development. This would be a meritorious objective, and in my opinion worth shaking a few ivory towers by any reasonable means available to induce an appropriate response.

There is perhaps possibility that some scientists may have been lured to AGW by the opportunity to conduct research, whether for its own sake or for possibility of making a difference, and in any event contributing to human knowledge. This also need not have been a bad thing.

In the end result, I consider the ultimate objectives of AGW science regarding the pursuit of environmental sustainability and the future wellbeing of humankind to be worthy. The fact that the science is far from straightforward should not deter us from pursuit of such worthy objectives.

Though any form of constraint will always be opposed by some, it continues to be essential that means be found to pursue and foster that which is in the long term common interest.

"when the person you are arguing with resorts to abuse you know you've won"

Good point Graham. Thing is, there are many "sceptics" that 'abuse' scientists and to a larger extent, the science itself.

It can equally be said, you know you've won when those who criticise you engage in the very behaviour they accuse you of doing.

Ok, you "think OLO is going to have to change the model in that regard" - anonymity that is. That's fine, and that is obviously your preference - we have crossed swords on this before.

However, I was responding to the thrust of your argument insofar as “those climate models”, not OLO's privacy policy.

Further, whilst I understand why The Acolyte Rizla's comment was deleted, I also understand the point TAR was trying to make. I don't really think any OLO'er really wants know about my share trading details. Besides, you don't know all the convoluted nitty-gritties.

---

Leo/Nick/whatever,
You regurgitate the same assertions here and on all the other blogs you frequent. It becomes tiresome and pointless to engage with you - you win :)

---

Saltpetre,
Peter, your last 3 posts - well said, and thanks for saying it.

---

Steven,
Like I said, nice try.
As said to Graham, I'm just passing through and will bid you, adieu. Appologies that the gist of a very good thread has been skewered, it often happens.

Qanda you made your share trading an issue. Of course you don't want it discussed seeing you appear to have been making it up. It's a pattern that you repeat in areas closer to climate science.

Saltpetre, the issue of anonymity goes to how people conduct themselves, not whether their argument is credible or not. When people are anonymous they feel free to say things that they wouldn't if their real world reputation was on the line.

Qanda claims to be an IPCC reviewer, as well as qualified in various brands of science and engineering, and uses that to browbeat people on the forum. I doubt that would happen if he had to front with a real name and reputation. And things would be pleasanter and more rational as a result.

He's not the only one, and some of his opponents are just as bad. I'm only talking about Qanda because he was at the centre of a discussion where the anonymity issue was raised. He's not necessarily the best example of what I am talking about.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6745#101586

Graham Young, please link to the post where I claimed to be an IPCC reviewer.

I expect an unequivacal apology if you can't.

the lies of peers
selling thier spin
shiould concern us all

its the multihydra beast
destroy one lie
ten come back

why do i bother
cause your my brothers
decieve you
means they think to decieve me

not sure if anyone is watching
the other climate gate topic
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12844&page=0

anyhow im refuting the many lies of science
beginning with evolution

but the format permiting two posts gets awquard..so i post the complete reply here
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=68&t=12018&p=91859#p91859

in time i will try to join the dots to this one
conducted in the bad ol days when it was only 2 posts
to reply an avalanche of attack
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2305&page=0

yep its far easier to believe
have faith in science fraud

than try to correct it

and still the blind lead the blinded over into impossability to see
dont the words of thge emails them, selves refute the theory

if not the theory then the law..and actions done via that lie
if its not the right thing to do
its not the right thing to do

a wall of lies
gets taken down one lie at a time

we trust science peers
we trust religeous peers

but what if they got fet of clay
the blooming lot of em

whats in it for them
exclusive franchise
respect

power?
money?

fear
sex?

small boys and adoring young girls?

who really knows
we all play a game
and in the end..the same 1%..control the rules
with the same peers..getting their acces to powerfull ears

The silence is deafening - no surprise there.

Challenge to any “sceptic” … if you’re going to assert stuff, be prepared to back it up with facts.