Bugsy, Grim, Rhosty et al.

Just to remind you that not one of you has yet tackled the three assertions I presented, which were;

• The only official orthodoxy in the world is CO2 based CAGW.
• The UN has exclusive authority and governance.
• The application of only the science that supports the UN’s single orthodoxy is permitted.

Now this is getting interesting. Since I posted an invitation for you to challenge the above three simple assertions, not one person has gone anywhere near them. Why?

This the core of your belief system, it is the source of all your public alarm stories, this is where the carved tablets of the orthodoxy are stored, this is where your high priests collate and distribute the output of the “rhetoric engine” and yet you will not recognize it?

The UNEP, UNFCCC and the IPCC are in deep strife, they have sustained your warmertariat for 30 plus years and now, as they rapidly hemorrhage the last vestiges of public credibility you will not come to their aid? You refuse to step forward and be counted.

A dozen or so more posts, thousands more words and yet not one of you will speak to these three facts.

You all seem to be circling the issues from the shadows, bulging eyes, knuckles dragging along the ground, glaring at the issues, chanting and hissing more of the same mantra.

“Consensus” hiss, “denialist” hiss, “the science” hiss, “big oil cohorts” hiss, “97% of scientists agree” hiss, “save the planet” hiss, “save our grandchildren” hissssss.

Just three very short sentences and you have all freaked out! WHY

spindoc,

I thought I'd sit this one out since I've had a busy weekend.

but....

"...bulging eyes, knuckles dragging along the ground....chanting and hissing more of the same mantra...."

Tell me where the above does not apply to the denialist/skeptic camp?

Wow Spinny, you’re having a real hissy fit this morning!

So can you now admit that you are firmly and squirmly in the ‘denialatariat’ camp…. and that this is a just plain silly place to be, coz you cannot meaningfuly assert that AGW is not real. We just DON’T KNOW!

Most of what you write is just incorrect, for this reason. It seems as though you are really squirming and desperately trying to convince yourself that AGW is not real.

WHY??

Why is it so important to you that it not be real?

spindoc,

I obviously don't perceive the same things in the same way as you do. Ramping up the metaphoric imagery doesn't help either. It makes you sound desperate to get someone to engage with you.

If you believe what you say is true, why do you need us to refute it? What does it matter what we think? Are you looking for some sort of validation?

Here is a link to the tide mark at The Isle of the DEad at Pt Arthur
in Tasmania.

The mark was established in 1841 and has been said to have been set
44.5 mm above mean sea level. It now sits 31.5 mm above the mean.
Quote:
However, the man responsible for putting the mark there, explorer
Sir James Clark Ross stated explicitly and several times in his 1846
book [3] that the mark was placed at MSL (as he estimated it to be),
not at a point 44.5cm above, near the high tide point, as claimed by the study.
Unquote:

In 1888 the then government meteorologist recorded the level as
34 cm above the mark and since then and 2.5 cm different to its present position.

So there is good record that the sea level has hanged 2.5 cm since
1888.
Here is the link and google of tide mark Pt Arthur gives others.

http://www.john-daly.com/deadisle/index.htm

So it has risen 2.5 cm since 1888 or risen 13 cm since 1841.

Oh well, I just thought I'd chime in and say...

Of course it's important to ensure that scientific rigour is achieved in pursuits such as the demonstration or disproving of the global warming hypothesis.

But one of the constitutive elements of scientific rigour is to keep an open mind in the face of any doubt or dissenting opinion whatsoever.

Not to mention that the ability to live with uncertainty (otherwise known as skepticism) is an important marker of emotional maturity, and that we would all do well to factor the possession or otherwise of such a virtue into our perception of other people and our consequent propensity to regard their statements as worthwhile or not.

Nobody has ever said that global warming is a fait accompli, just as no scientist worth a damn would look at the data that is available to us at the moment and make an unequivocal judgement that it is not occurring.

So given that an open question remains we can do one of two things - we can prepare for what we think might happen, or we can deal with the consequences if they arise (which might not be that bad really... I mean, if say Bangladesh, the Mekong delta, the Shanghai basin, and vast areas of northern Europe and and western USA go underwater, we might at least become less misanthropist as a society, and thus more accepting of asylum seekers).

But if the latter scenario did eventuate, then I would expect people such as Ian Plimmer and spindoc to be the first to volunteer their spare rooms and half of their earning capacity to compensate those disenfranchised by inaction.