Well as Mark Twain said "I sometimes wonder whether the world is run by smart people who joke or imbeciles who are serious". Take your pick people.

'In summary, a representative of an extremist minority trying to impose its view on the majority.'

just keep her away from the children.

Now what I'd really like to know is what set Lyn off on this crusade, on a subject she is not at all qualified to understand.

Of course she is entitled to an opinion, no matter how misguided, but why such a crusade? It really does come across as an obsession, by someone who's training & background does nothing to give her any authority or understanding on the subject.

runner,

"just keep her away from the children."

I'm surmising that you'd also like evolutionary theory "kept away from the children".

Which kinda sums up your scientific prowess.

Hasbeen,

"Now what I'd really like to know is what set Lyn off on this crusade, on a subject she is not at all qualified to understand......who's training & background does nothing to give her any authority or understanding on the subject."

Considering your musings on the subject of AGW rest purely on...well...not much at all....except accusations of fraud and conspiracy.

That's a bit of a larf.

Dear Lyn.

The reason why your side is losing the climate debate is because of several reasons.

You refuse to acknowledge that your opponents have a valid point of view and you refuse to address their points. Instead, you and your team have come onto OLO presenting articles like "The Psychology of Climate Change Denial" which accuse your opponents of serious mental problems, which is a great way to get your opponents back up and make them even more sceptical of your position.

You present your position as if you and your team are the font of all human knowledge who are just so absolutely ri-i-i-ight, that there is just no need at all to debate with your opponents. You claim that nearly all the world's scientists agree with you when my own research reveals that this is not the case. All scientists agree that climate changes, but they do not agree that human beings are the primary cause of it.

You ignore the fact that scientists who agree with your luddite view of human progress have been caught lying to the public and suppressing data which contradicts their position. You yourself refuse to even discuss why evidence which contradicts your position, like growing Antarctic sea ice, or no change on earth temperatures in 17 years.

When any group pushing a point of view acts with the imperiousness of absolute monarchs, and thinks that everybody who does not think like they do is an idiot, and that they need not justify their reasoning, they can hardly blame the people they so obviously despise for being sceptical of anything they advocate.

No LEGO,

The simple truth is that OLO is place for "amateur" discussion on climate.

The reason is that scientists who are trained in the disciplines related to climate don't come here. They publish their peer reviewed conclusions elsewhere.

I read recently that Andrew Bolt is the most published commentary on climate change in Australia...what does that tell us about the "expertise" bandied around in the media.

Your post is a compendium of amateur AGW denial, something I've read a million times before by people who aren't climate scientists, have no basis on which to judge the science and who start from a premise (in your case, "skepticism") - and who rubbish scientists accordingly.

Why is it only climate scientists who are supposedly part of a scam?

It's because their findings have the capacity to alter the status quo.

The thing is that those with the most to lose under that scenario have a hordes of minions willing to aid them, not only in MSM, but also on social media like OLO.

"....and that they need not justify their reasoning..."

They do "justify their reasoning"...it's just that the likes of most "amateur" deniers haven't the capacity to understand it and aren't interested in trying to.