Hi Poirot,

You say,

“By that, I'm presuming that you think laymen are the people to listen to on climate. Scientists actually study the science and - dare I say - have a modicum of expertise in their specific areas.”

No, I’m saying the exact opposite. I would not fly in a passenger jet that was built on consensus, I do not support any scientific “predictions” built on socialized science. It matters not if those scientists have a “modicum of expertise” of even a great deal of expertise. If they cannot offer proof they must demonstrate they are searching for it. That does not include “predictions” for political ends.

Real scientists produce “scientific forecasts” to an incredible degree of proof, pseudo-scientists produce “forecasts by scientists”. Here is a forecast for you. The warmertariat will fade away along with the climate feasts.

Rhosty,

“Talking about disgraced belief systems” which we were not but a great try for a diversion.

Now, now Rhosty, you cannot have a disgraced belief system. A belief system has absolutely no requirement for proof, evidence or facts otherwise it can’t be a belief system can it?

I can see where you are coming from though, you “believe” in warming so you are trying to redefine the word “belief” to accommodate your irrationality. Nice try though.

Tea break over my boy, back on your head.

Ooh, the return of Robespierre and the takeover of climate science by the long forgotten Commies. How dramatic.

Please remind me, who are the catastrophists again?

Cheryl
Didn't quite understand your post.. the greens want the wind power stuff, although there are real question about whether mass use on an isolated grid will save any carbon at all.. the point I was making was that the economy would naturally adapt, if it is left alone.. any attempt to create the conditions for adaptation will probably end up being counterproductive..

"Neither side of the global warming ‘debate’ has been well served by the media."

This is a joke, right? With daily stories of doom and disaster in the liberal media as they fight to restore their crumbling relevance?

The only way the AGW side could have been better 'served' by the media is if Fairfax, the ABC, the Guardian and the BBC had agreed to cage-fight in public for the right to osculate the rumps of Al Gore and Michael Mann.

"On 21 December 2012 the Mayans said the Earth and its inhabitants will undergo a ‘physical or spiritual transformation‘, which includes, but is not limited to, being consumed by a black hole. It was ever thus."

No, they didn't, to the Maya, December 21 is simply the end of a long (calendar) count, the apocalyptic fantasies and bizarre accretions are all modern delusions, like climate change denial. I'm still waiting for an OLO article from a climate change "sceptic" who actually has qualifications in climatology, they appear to be an endangered specifies.

BTW, the Maya (not Mayans) probably had plenty of time to predict their own demise as it was, according to the latest research, due to a prolonged and devastating drought--climate change perhaps? So there are lessons to be learned from the Maya by those who bother to do the appropriate research.