Perhaps Cohenite would like to assure us of his expertise, by citing his formal and/or informal qualifications for expressing public opinions on the topic of anthropogenic global warming.

I am also interested in Cohenite's opinion on Mr Kile's opinions about the causes of global warming. See my previous posts, including a quote pasted here.

"Human sacrifice is clearly a potent forcing agent in climate equilibration. Furthermore, analysis of the climate record suggests its decline has been a key driver of rising global temperatures. The Aztec (and other) priests were right. Only sacrifice will ensure humankind’s survival."

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/6/the-aztec-solution

Mr Kile's [Quadrant] article describes the mechanics of climate control, as practiced (intentionally or not) by the Aztecs at the time of the Conquistador invasion of Mexico.

- - - - - -

Mr Kile has certainly provided us with stimulus material. As yet, I have no reason to take either Mr Kile or Cohenite very seriously, but then, I am not sure Mr Kile intends to be taken seriously.

Cohenite - do you have an opinion on these matters, and what sort of credentials are they based upon?

How interesting and original survivor, to ask me about my qualifications; your original and interesting questions certainly deserve a frank and forthright response; however, Graham runs a tight ship here and given this I don't think I can do justice to your interesting and original enquiries.

Why don't you repost your interesting and original questions here where I can assure you I will respond fully to them:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2012/01/03/guest-post-dover-beach-consent-and-perversion/comment-page-2/#comment-374393

So, go ahead and make yourself known; I look forward to our tete-a-tete.

Cohenite, thank you for the opportunity. And the coy answer. But I cannot imagine what it may have to do with your opinion that
"Graham runs a tight ship here ... ".

Can you pardon a modest correction? With all due respect I doubt that I am the original survivor. Someone is bound to have survived longer and grimmer circumstances than I. Maybe you. Who knows?

Regarding identity and qualifications, briefly but generally put, these vital statistics of mine can be put in two short lines.

Thing is, I asked you first, So, you show me yours, then I'll show you mine, but let's do it here.

Anticipating another coy reply, I'll ask you simply whether you think Mr Kile is an accomplished satirist (who gulled Quadrant's editors with his pseudoscience, and and is enjoying the evidence that you are either taking him seriously or else overlooking the bleeding obvious) or just barking mad? Surely this is a reasonable fallback to which you may respond?

I'm confused survivor; are you asking me out with Mr Kile to be the chaperone, or what? I'm really impressed with your pick-up line:

"Thing is, I asked you first, So, you show me yours, then I'll show you mine, but let's do it here."

And if we don't work out I'm going to try it on my next 'special friend'.

Don't read too much into things, Cohenite. Enjoy yourself, but don't read too much into things.

What I'm interested in picking up is your reply to the questions I asked on January third:

"Mr Kile has certainly provided us with stimulus material. As yet, I have no reason to take either Mr Kile or Cohenite very seriously, but then, I am not sure Mr Kile intends to be taken seriously.

Cohenite - do you have an opinion on these matters, and what sort of credentials are they based upon?"

Happy N.Y. to all on OLO.

Quite surprised that this thread is still going, I’ve been away for NY and have clearly missed some of the action.

It seems to have escaped the attention of most that this thread is about the indoctrination of our children in relation to AGW. With all due respect to this author’s previous article(s), it is about THIS thread not other threads or articles. Nor is it about attacks on the author’s credibility or trading scientific links. It is about identifying and discussing yet another modus operandi of the pro AGW lobby.

So why is it so difficult for the warmers to go there? We have everything on this thread except any analysis of the issue of involving children in this debate.

The domestic violence laws in Australia are clear. If one of the parents uses their children as a weapon against their partner, it is an offence. Yet curiously, our children can be used (abused) by the warmertariat, to promote their ideological case against skeptics.

So is anyone game to address this issue? Or are we to conclude that the warmers don’t have a case, are not interested in a debate, are quite happy with public discussion on complex science and are willing to accept that the Boeing 747 was built on “consensus”.

Sooner or later the warmers will have to face reality. We can watch in amusement as they go down with the ship, we can shout at them that there is a hole in their hull, we can point to the increased list in their logic and we can draw their attention to the reef upon which they are about impale themselves. Unless they are prepared to ask what list? What reef? and what hole? There is nothing we can do for them.

The issue is the indoctrination of children in a highly contentious and divisive public debate. Is anyone going there?