@ Squeers (& fellow maximifidianists)

<<If I was a Green I'd resent being called "slimy", "self-righteous" and "loathsome". I don't even use that kind of language for minimifidianists, who are much more deserving.>>

If I were a Green and I had sold out OZ on border control, undermined OZ industries with phony CO2 protocols, and was seeking to cede away OZ sovereignty to the UN, I would think that I got off rather lightly being labeled with the above epitaphs.

On the other hand, I would expect my maximifidianists allies --who harbour an even bigger lobe of the qualities described in the (abovementioned) epitaphs --to express their moral indignation at the use of such terms.

"Slimy, self-righteous, loathsome, nitwit, idiot and blowflies" are just some of the terms resorted to by denialists.

It's as if they somehow believe the can simply "abuse away" the science.

@Poirot,

<<It's as if [denialists”] somehow believe the can simply "abuse away" the science.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 10 November 2012 8:30:53 AM>>

Yes, and the believers are as puuuuuuuuuuure as driven snow.

You have this endearing one-eyed quality –which totalitarian regimes would pay trillions to clone --where you are totally incapable of seeing the errors & abuse of your own side.

It aint about science versus anti-science –never was.
It’s about people like you and Naomi (hide the de)Klien
who are seeking to use science to further their own narrow political agendas.

Sorry, SPQR?

At least those arguing on the side of moderation have broad scientific agreement on their side...the key word there is "moderation"......as opposed to totally dismissing the conclusions of climate scientists.

And the likes of Heartland have no political agenda?

Pull the other one.

steven, consider Maurice Newman, in his article a few days ago, where he said:

“Regrettably for the global warming religion, its predictions have started to appear shaky, and the converts, many of whom have lost their jobs and much of their wealth, are losing faith. Worse, heretic scientists have been giving the lie to many of the prophecies described in the IPCC bible. They could not be silenced.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/losing-their-religion-as-evidence-cools-off/story-e6frgd0x-1226510184533

Does it not concern you that you are backing barefaced liars, steven, did you not read the Climategate emails, and see the unethical, unprincipled approach of the AGW backing miscreants?

A sensible comment on this disgraceful debacle was made in very moderate terms by Professor Lindzen who says: “Claims that the earth has been warming, that there is a Greenhouse Effect, and that man’s activity have contributed to warming are trivially true but essentially meaningless.”

He said our natural body temperature varies by eight tenths of a degree.

He showed a Boston newspaper weather graphic for a day – it had the actual temperature against a background of the highest and lowest recorded temperature for that day. The difference was as much as 60 degrees F.

I dealt with your science deficient post to hasbeen, steven. As I say, you have learnt nothing in the past year since I pointed out the deficiency in your assertion of the fraud-based AGW.
Fortunately, many scientists in the last year have become free of the illusion. Fritz Varenholt, previously a leading warmist said in an article a few months ago:

“Recent experience with the UN's climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too.”

Of course they did.

Leo Lane,

I found this article on Vahrenholt's claims:

http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2012/06/11/fritz-vahrenholt-interview-european-energy-review-die-kalte-sonne/#more-2221

On the subject of expert reviewers of IPCC reports...apparently Lord Monckton thinks he's qualified also:

http://www.readfearn.com/2012/11/lord-moncktons-new-climate-role-for-the-ipcc-isnt-what-it-appears/