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

No I am not, Manne is.

The argument that climate scientists should have the same respect as other professionals is sophistry; other professionals are not dictating public policy because they claim their expertise has enabled them to see the end of the world.

If a bunch of doctors starting going around saying that unless massive grant money was given to them, that people should do without and as they are told and investment in their approved projects did not occur then the Earth was basically going to blow up then, unless I have underestimated the capacity of people to recognise BS, I bet the public would start to kick and demand to see the evidence.

And this is the point; the evidence of the climate scientists has been withheld, pronouncements are made and exposes occur which reveal the feet of clay of both the evidence and the climate scientists.

These scientists do not deserve the privileged position they are claiming; they have acted arrogantly and secretively and disdainfully towards the public.

Poirot: I am still waiting for you to explain why Julia was right to force up the price of electricity with her carbon (sick) tax but is also right to demand now that the states force down electricity prices, whilst herself refraining from repealing the carbon (sick) tax.

cohenite,

Your accusation that climate scientists predict "the end of the world" - or "the Earth basically blowing up" is 24 carat sophistry.

Regarding "doctors" - or medical and public health officials - requesting investment in their approved projects as something the public would disdain.

You mean like this?:
http://www.learner.org/workshops/primarysources/disease/transcript03.html

"The only means of preventing these diseases at this time was to clean up the city, improve the the housing stock, reduce overcrowding, provide better sanitation, et cetera.

Now this environmental emphasis implied the need for massive social investment and a change in social and economic relationships..."

Tom Tiddler,

Wait all you like. It's not incumbent upon me to respond to every Tom, Tim and Tiddler on this forum.

Loudmouth,

"...A few more ad hominems won't hurt us..."

"...Shove your elitism."

Hypocrite

Poirot, I have dealt with your germ theory comparison with AGW above; Germ theory was accepted because it worked, AGW is not being accepted because it doesn't work.

Poirot: so you really are intellectually challenged when you cannot respond to my very simple question.

BTW, it was interesting to watch the news this evening, with tales of worst ever droughts in USA, and worst ever floods in Thailand and much of China, despite the identical levels of atmospheric CO2 worldwide including all those countries at all times.

Why are climate scientists so useless that they have not been able to persuade us all that reducing atmospheric CO2 to 350 ppm (Hansen) would ensure just the right amounts of rain in both the USA on the one hand and China/Philippines on the other AT ALL TIMES?

cohenite,

You applied the "If a bunch of doctors..." parallel. I went with it.

"AGW is not being accepted because it doesn't work."

Well thank you, Mr Lawyer (aka climate expert)

Tom Tiddler,

Obviously the increased frequency of extreme events means nothing to you. What were you saying about being intellectually challenged?