"Attributes I would hardly deem as desirable when debating current issues or framing the future of the world."

So, you're an anti-democrat Atlarak? Certainly you are arrogant.

I would suggest to you that the use of the term "ordinary people" by the author was meant to be ironic.

From my experience with the best and brightest I have never seen so little common sense or ability to admit a mistake; and this is what we are seeing with AGW; massive egoes combined with a lot of money, fame and some really weird ideology keeping what is, without a doubt a scandalous pseudo-science going.

We need bright people but we need ordinary people and we need the ordinary social structure of democracy more.

"I would suggest that the use of the term "ordinary people" by the author was meant to be ironic."

You should know, cohenite, you are the author.

I reckon we should ditch higher learning and inter-disciplinary expertise altogether.. It's obviously redundant in a modern democracy where "ordinary people" access their knowledge, comfort and reassurance from gathering together under the ideological umbrellas of blog sites.

Houellebecq,

Send me the $100. I promise, under the government I lead, I will burn it for you.

Bonmot,

I always find your links interesting.

I usually always read them, as in the past I've found they can undermine your own arguments.

This time I only read as far as this

'Converging evidence from the behavioural and brain sciences suggests that the human moral judgement system is not well equipped to identify climate change — a complex, large-scale and unintentionally caused phenomenon — as an important moral imperative'

I immediately had a vision of a pontificating and position changing Kevin Rudd.

You position was undermined ... again.

I then switched off and hit the upper right red X... and stopped reading your posts on this subject

Poirot; you sound bitter; in a democracy people, whether ordinary like me or elite like you don't have to gather anywhere to get their information; they can inform themselves, or not, as individuals.

That is the key, in case you missed it, individuality.

What we see with the AGW push is the concerted effort of some 2nd raters to establish themselves as a sort of priesthood, justified and empowered by the 'save the Earth' exigency.

This push wants to make itself the sole source, not only of information, but authority as well. Their hubris, condescension and grasping for power is despicable.

Poirot, I can't believe you have been taken in by this; all I can say is what Winston said:

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried."

But then he also said:

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

He was a politician after all.

I think wily Winston was correct on both counts.

You're the one making distinctions and claiming certain people are "elite" and others "ordinary".

You offer your services as a lawyer. People come to you for your expertise in your field, just as they seek out doctors, engineers and scientists....even the trades have their particular expertise.

Why is it elitist to imagine that those qualified and working in the field of climate science are more knowledgeable on the subject than "ordinary people", who, by dint of their ideological perspectives and reinforced by group-think, are swayed in favour of conspiracy?

"...2nd raters"...?

Here are some simple questions, Poirot:

* average world temperature has risen by 0.9 degrees in the past century - yes ? no ?

* sea-levels have risen by around two inches in the last century - yes ? no ?

* average world temperatures haven't risen by anything much in the last fourteen years. yes ? no ?

* there are a range of remedies that might mitigate the awful effects of Global Luke-Warming and CO2 poisoning, from nuclear power to tree-planting to switching of the kitchem light, etc. Yes ? No ?

No rush, AGLW is not such a big deal. A few more ad hominems won't hurt us. We can wait :)