Poirot, perhaps you should keep in mind that opinions on religion and creation, like many other topics, do not invalidate opinions on climate change alarmism. Especially since the topic of CAGW is so close to your heart or should we say faith.

Unless of course you just wish to present yourself as empty headed and bitchy.

The Judeo-Christian world view is that humans are in control of nature and have managed it well. Therefore a stuff up is unlikely. Rather than adjust their thinking they like to ridicule others which backfires as the warming news keeps coming e.g. Sydney's hottest day ever on January 18th. The year was 2013 not 1827 or whatever. These people seem irate that we interpret higher temperatures as increased warming. Higher temperatures mean something else not warming.

There is a second tier of denial which is more widespread, namely that token gestures and hand wringing will make a difference. What will make a difference is genuine sacrifice with winners and losers. That's what we're doing now with carbon tax and the renewable energy target, just tinkering around the edges.

spindoc suggests that Poirot is presenting as empty-headed and bitchy because she challenges runner's vacuous sloganeering on a subject he knows next to zilch about.

Fair enough, I've obviously hit a nerve.

runner, as a fellow denier, bases his conclusions on anything but science...as do the rest of you.

Like most of those who want to blame psychology for a failure to sprout propaganda, Robert shows he knows nothing of the debate.

He can point all he likes to evidence of changes in climate to date, but the problem he and others face is showing that the changes over the past few decades are due to human influence, and if so how much (the warmists have long since conceded it is at least partially natural). Once you get past that, can anything of our hard-won knowledge be used to say anything useful about future climate states (very tricky).

Once that hurdle is passed they still face the problem of justifying any action on economic grounds. This is impossible, basically, even if an enforceable, effective international agreement of limiting emissions was anywhere on the horizon, or there was any means of seriously limiting emissions that would not be politically too difficult to implement.

Rather than contest any of those points Robert is really claiming that its all due to psychology. This is an easier argument to make, but that's all that can be said about it.

Its not 'denial' or fear Robert. Its the fact that
1. The science of AGW is divided along political lines and has degenerated into a slanging match - Science has long since left Climate studies.
2.That a number of AGW advocates have been shown to be corrupt or deceitful.
3. That contrary studies are disallowed by the main peer reviewed journals, regardless of their merit.
4. That a real debate was never allowed.
5. That 'questioners' were, according to David Suzuki and others better off in prison.
6. A large number of climate predictions failed to come true.
7. That it is primarily a way of taking money form the poor in the West and giving it to the rich in the developing world through carbon taxes.

People actually noticed that snow did continue to fall in Kosciusko, it did snow heavily again in England and rain did fill the dams and there weren't millions of climate refugees by 2010. In essence, the AGW promoters don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Atman,

1. Scientific agreement is excluded from "skeptic" argument.

2. Who has been found to be corrupt or deceitful (outside of denier blogs)?

3. The latest tactic of "skeptics" is to question peer-review (because their stuff doesn't make the grade)

4. The real debate should include people who are actually trained in and understand the various disciplines that comprise climate science

5. (Not worth commenting on)

6. A large amount of predictions have come to pass - some even more so than were projected. A "real" climate scientist will admit the complicated nature of climate study, and not claim to be able to project every nuance of the system

7. Conspiracy theory, in this case, only applies to scientists who work on climate. Apparently the way they are taught science includes a unit of "conspiracy"....

It continues to snow in Kosciusko so AGW is negated

Oh, right then!