cohenite,

"For me the emails were a game changer..."

You mean the cherry-picking and distortion that was presented as "climategate"...(psst - let's not mention the exoneration of the scientists involved, because as all dutiful skeptics will tell you - it was a white-wash)

"To the extent I agree with bonmot; blog discussions are probably useless in providing resolution to the threat to science which climate science poses."

"Blog discussions" are the oxygen of the skeptic/denialist movement (and usually there's not a scientist in sight who's 'qualified' in any of the disciplines involved with climate science).

It all simply percolates down to a 'conspiracy' - that's what blog skeptism excels at - providing a forum for the exercise of 'group think' fueled by conspiracy theories and perpetuated by intelligent amateurs who consider that they know climate science better than the climate scientists.

Poirot: the inquiries were a whitewash as they were conducted by past and present members of the CRU team and their associates. Not a single critic of CRU was interviewed by any of the inquiries.

But what I would like to see from you is a denunciation of Gillard's new resolve to bring power prices down, when I thought the whole purpose of the RET and CO2 tax was to force them up to the point where renewables become competitive, which is at least $140 per tonne CO2 (see Richard Tol, Maximum carbon taxes in the short run, 2012) to limit atmospheric CO2 to 450 ppm.

Cohenite, re:

http://sharifflab.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/03/MarkowitzShariff2012.pdf

The authors do not even mention the term "denialism", you obviously disagree.

I can't keep up with all your favourite blog sites (aca-daca 'No Trick Zone') but yes, useless.

.

Tim-Tom

So, you're still at it after this:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12137#209312

Who reviewed your 'papers' - pals over at Jo's, or Jen's, or the Lavoisier Group, perhaps?

Poirot:

"that's what blog skeptism excels at - providing a forum for the exercise of 'group think' fueled by conspiracy theories and perpetuated by intelligent amateurs who consider that they know climate science better than the climate scientists."

Congratulations Poirot, I count 4 cliches in that little diatribe against your inferiors. What a shame Poirot, I thought I saw some capacity for reasoned debate with you; no matter, I'll pass on your comments to Judith Curry, Roy Spencer, Ross McKitrick, Jennifer Marohasy, David Stockwell, Ryan Maue, the Pielkes etc, all "intelligent amateurs".

Bonmot, your link to the psychology of the [im]morality of non-belief in AGW indeed does not mention "Denialism"; it is much too civilised for that. Personally I find the stench of hypocrisy most disagreeable when it is couched in avuncular terms and context and that is what your 'study' does; anyway, as you know, in legal terms an implied meaning has as much force as a stated meaning and your link implies "Denialism" at every turn.

Your link says this:

"Uncertainty about future outcomes generally increases self-oriented behaviour and optimistic (moral) thinking27 (although see ref. 28 for exceptions to this rule); uncertainty also promotes optimistic biases29. Similarly, recent research shows that individuals often misinterpret the intended messages conveyed regarding the probabilistic nature of climate change outcomes — and tend to do so over-optimistically."

This is amusing in the context of AGW hyperbole and agitprop; consider this paper:

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL039642-pip.pdf

The paper says this:

"The greater the uncertainty that is considered for radiative forcing, the more difficult it is to rule out high climate sensitivity, although low climate sensitivity (< 2°C) remains unlikely.”

This is the precautionary principle: we don't know and have no evidence and we’re not certain about anything, but we’re certain things are going to be bad.

How does that sit with the moral imperative of accepting AGW? It is derigueur for climate scientists to exaggerate and lie to get the message across; that being the case why is it such a stretch to think they lie about the existence of AGW at all?

I just love being lectured about the morals of an issue which manifests no morals itself.

Hi Poirot,

The story so far:

* 0.9 degree average world temperature rise in a century;

* two-inches sea-level rise in about the same time;

* no significant temperature -rise in the last fourteen years or so;

* all because of CO2.

But what would bloggers know, even though we scheme and plot together ? As you point out, from the Olympian heights that you share with Manne, Maher, Milne and Hamilton, 'conspiracy' - that's what blog skepticism excels at...."

A roughly, more-or-less democratic society is a messy beast - it allows yobs like me, and so many others on this thread, to ask questions, and expect answers - and if we don't get them, we are free to tell you and your superior friends to go to buggery.

How much more efficient it would be in a Utopia where only experts had a proper say over their own fields, and where us proles would be content to go down pit for fifty years ?

The promised day of power for professionals may yet come, Poirot, the day when Whitlam intelligentsias rule, when the Good Society will be run according to the Grand Plan - and when the trains will all run on time.

As I am starting to be persuaded by Hayek, it is a very short distance, in practice, from socialism to fascism - weeks in the case of Russia, days in the case of Kampuchea. It's just that 'socialism' was sometimes more enduring, and probably more destructive of a belief in human potential.

But not while I and so many others can draw breath. Shove your elitism.

:)