cohenite,

You never ignore me - (fair enough, coz I am a tad irresistible - and we only got banned once for arguing with our mate bonmot when the pie fight got out of hand.)

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll draw your attention to this link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/30/belief-climate-change-scepticism

".....the more scientifically literate people are, the more their ideological filters kick in when reading information about climate change. It might seem counter-intuitive, but the more confidence people have in their ability to grasp the science, the more able they are to slot it into their world view..."

(The article by senior Met Office scientist, Vicki Pope, embedded in the above is worth a read as well)

Describes yourself (as a humble lawyer) to a tee.

"Describes yourself (as a humble lawyer) to a tee."

And you and every other AGW believer; the point is the only world view being promoted is the pro-AGW world view; and the believers of that world view believe in it so passionately and virtuously that that belief becomes its own ethical justification; it's called Noble Cause Corruption;

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/is-corruption-noble-if-it-as-for-noble.html

And what about Hottell?

cohenite,

from experience, I've lived a much more comfortable life just laughing inwardly at global warmers/climate changers/climate extremers, rather than arguing with them, especially since the world, krudd (as well as backstabbing backflipping Julia ... one time) and the majority of Australian voters have rejected doing anything about GW/CC/CE. (Gee is that a concensus?).

I wonder what they'll turn into when Abbott's PM.

It's a metamorphing I'm looking forward to ... silently of course.

Cheers

@ imajulianutter,

<< and the majority of Australian voters have rejected doing anything about GW/CC/CE. (Gee is that a concensus?).>>

No, no, no, imajulianutter, you've go it all wrong!

You have to think in the groove. It isn’t any old consensus --it’s, a consensus of the elect.

The elect is made up of two broad groups. Scientists who agree with the IPCC, and who on account of their training can see trends and associations that no one else can see. And left leaning *thinkers* who on account of having been born that way can see the big picture.

And as for the electorate not seeing eye-to-eye with the climate elect . All it means is that they have to be ED-U-CATED.
When they are ED-U-CATED they will see it the elects way.

And rest assured, the elect will run multi-million dollar tax payer funded campaigns to ensure that electorate are well and truly ED-U-CATED!

cohenite,

I read your blog.

"....How can a strategy to put an enemy like the Nazi's off guard or the release of documents which contain important, relevant information for citizens in a democratic society be compared with fraudulently obtaining irrelevant information about a private entity in a democracy?"

Heartland?

Heartland "is" at the forefront of denialism.

I know you won't bother with this article by Naomi Klein which I've put up before, however, it's relevant to Heartland's influence in the climate debate.
http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate

Poirot, you don't or won't get it; Heartland is small potatoes; it has a budget of a couple of mill; compare that with the EPA or NASA or CRU or CSIRO, Department of Climate Change etc, all or any of these organisations that you and every other believer wheel out to cry 'consensus'; it's a flea gainst a herd of elephants.

Yet the flea is winning. Why?

2 reasons; firstly the flea s right; AGW is shot to bits; the average punter can see that; you can't fool them all the time.

2ndly, the nature of the sceptical position is that we individualy inform ourselves; I don't care what Heartland says; I inform myself.

The believers are different: herd animals, no matter how smart. It makes you gullible and susceptible to ideologically based plausible garbage; you've switched off the massive intellects and been conned.

Go and study who is making money from AGW; report back, inform yourself.

And what about Hottell?