Dear Poirot and 579,

The denialist movement has very deep similarities with the religious movement, especially with their refusal to engage the appropriate science.

My wife's side of the family are fundamentalist Christians, all good folk but mad as hatters on the issue of evolution. For more than three decades we have argued ourselves to a standstill on creationism, so much so that whenever we have another crack at it, as we still often do, it is done with smiles on our faces. In fact my father-in-law keeps my subscription to the Creation magazine up to date each year. You have to read it to believe it. Just like the denialist movement it is so full of incidental and junk science which is inflated to provide 'absolute proof' refuting evolution.

All the same wealth of characters appear here on OLO and it is a fun exercise pairing them up.

Leo Lane's equivalent would of course be Runner. Both fundamentalist to their core, utterly dismissing counter argument or science. Not prepared to concede an inch. Both pretty abysmal on the science but ballistic on the diatribes.

Cohenite I would be inclined to pair with the good old Boaz-David who use to haunt the halls of OLO. Fundamentalist deniers of evolution/AGW but at least prepared to engage in the debate to a degree. Still not real flash on the science but are prepared to try and bluff often with BS. A little reluctant to fly their true colours but will confirm their faith with a little prompting.

Curmudgeon I would tie in with Peter Selleck. Notably more knowledgeable and moderate, sometimes seen to get a little frustrated with the efforts of the more strident members of their flock. One would think these two would be the most open to changing their positions given rational and sound evidence but often they have invested so much of their professional integrity in their position they can be the less open to change than one might think.

The rest of us need to remember science and rational argument is not all that is at play here.

My dear Leo Lane.

You wrote;

““the following statement is a scientific statement: "…no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes.” Can you refute that science, csteele?” Obviously, you cannot.”

Really? Again?

Okay. But I'm not sure you won't just ignore it since this is what you did last time.

Hansen et al 1988.

I remember discussing the age of the earth with my Creationist father-in-law. Light travelling through space from distant galaxies he would counter with early creation time not being the same as ours, sedimentation rates were attributed to the Flood, carbon dating was deemed to be completely unreliable after 2,000 years. The problem was that none of these were tangible tactile things. Finally I thought I had him. I had been through some caves in WA where the guide had told us some impressive stalactites were over 60,000 years old. When I asked him how he knew he replied that there is a finite rate at which they grow, if the water rate is too slow they plug up and if it is too fast it erodes the structure instead of building it. From memory about a cubic foot equated to roughly a thousand years.

When presented with this he completely ignored it. Only years later did he suddenly spring on me a photograph of a 6” long stalactite forming underneath the War Memorial in Melbourne, slapping it down with some degree of triumph. However when we did the calculations its volume was consistent with the guide's figure. Haven't heard a peek since nor have I raised it. Funnily enough it did appear as an issue in the afore mentioned creationist magazine. I like to think a question from him might have prompted it but given his closed mind it probably is unlikely.

You are very much like him Mr Lane.

I had suspected that divine intervention was at play. Some of the denying aspects are glaringly obvious, other forces were involved. Not good for rational discussion

csteele, you are the most bloviating source of hot air I have come across. You are the perfect troll; you ignore the overwhelming refutations of the sparse science you do invoke, such as Hansen 1988, which I have shown is contradicted by Foster and Rahmstorf 2012, and repeat the message as though the message continues to be valid.

The comparison of sceptics like myself to the creationists or tobacco advocates or Nazis is just ad hom of a primitive, puerile but typical nature which defines the Gais.

To people like yourself, csteele, who pull the creationsist red herring, or should that be transitional fossil, I simply refer them to this, which I endorse:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/wackononsense.pdf

Simply put, Gais like yourself, do not have any science because AGW does not have any science; as President Klaus says:

“Discussing technicalities in more and more depth will not help us, because the supporters of the global warming doctrine are not interested in them. We are not dealing with people who are authentically interested in science, in objective truth, in
identifying the causes of incremental changes in temperature. For them, the temperature data are just an instrument in their plans to change the world, to suppress human freedom, to bring people back to underdevelopment. Their ideas are the ideas of ideologues, not of scientists or climatologists. Data and theories, however sophisticated, will not change their views.”

Dear cohenite,

In my first post here I said of you the author “his egregious misrepresenting or ignoring of the facts”, words I had taken from your article where you had used them to describe Mr Flannery.

Then you hype the religion theme with things like “So, AGW alarmists do not argue from a real world perspective but a religious reality; that explains the implacable and steadfastly devoted clinging to the belief in AGW, and why there is this attempt to set up a cloister between the saved believers in AGW and the disbelieving heretics.”

But when I come right back at you with the same theme you get yourself all tizzy.

It seems you are more than happy dishing it out but when the same is directed at you you get sulky again. Sorry to say it is typical bullying behaviour.

I'm more than happy to keep the debate on reasonable terms but when you lot sabre rattle it is a lot of fun replying in kind.

As my kids would say; You need to suck it up princess!

Now to you dipping your toe back into the science of this debate after the debacle of your two Germans. You are certainly a sucker for punishment.

Who do you have for me now? Oh Foster and Rahmstorf who you say contradict and refute Hansen 1988. Good God man, have you even read the thing? I'm not sure you could find a more solid piece of validation for Hansen's 1988 work than their paper. Here is a hint my friend, don't take summaries of denialist web sites as you will always find yourself in the poo. I am more than happy to recommend their study to anyone looking for good science on the projections of Mr Hansen.

You really are a dope aren't you mate. In fact you are that bad I'm seriously thinking you may be working for the other side. Curmudgeon could well be getting suspicious of what seems more and more like well planned trolling. Sorry if I have blown your cover.

So, the author thinks I'm missing in action - oh such a 'pissant' is he.

Actually, some people have real jobs and real lives - unlike Cohenite/Anthony Cox and the Leo Lanes of the world.

How do we know? Just Google "Anthony Cox" (or cohenite) or "Leo Lane" + "climate change".

Incidentally, I think 3rd (and 4th) generation nuclear is the way to go. Does that make me a 'Green', or Gaian?
No, despite accusations to the contrary.

Interested? Check out this web site:

http://bravenewclimate.com/

The idiocy of the author's rants and ravings, whilst amusing ... are, let one say - boring.
Evidence? See comments from his fellow travelers.

At the end of the day, the author is what he accuses others ... a simple troll with nothing better to do than use OLO as a platform for his own 'cultist belief'.

Unsurprising? Absolutely.