Peter Lang, it is barely worth wasting the electrons to respond to you, but because electrons are ultra-cheap at present here goes.

When Don Aitkin writes something useful and interesting I comment that it is useful and interesting. When he writes tripe, I point out that it is tripe.

Here I am simply pointing out the absurdity of criticising climate change through criticising comments made about other topics. If Don wants to tackle climate change by elucidating his disagreement with the scientific arguments made for the climate change hypothesis, I think that would be a useful and interesting post for him to write. Arguing against climate change as you do, that lots of people live in energy poverty, is silly and pointless.

That the earth is warming in unequivocal. The science is in. There is hardly anywhere left to argue. What our response to that information should be is a whole different story.

Agronomist,

You accuse Aitkin of writing tripe. That's projection. It's you who writes tripe. You write tripe continually.

"That the earth is warming in unequivocal. The science is in. There is hardly anywhere left to argue."

Yep, only a few cultist's are left still believing what you believe. The world is moving on. The key countries are not turning up to Obama's climate chat. The interest in CAGW and in subsidising and mandating unreliable renewable energy is waning. Countries are cutting back.

Your problem is you wouldn't know what's going on because you read only the cultist's propaganda. And you've shown repeatedly you do not understand what is relevant and, furthermore, that you don't want to know.

Have you read this?
"FRAUD, BIAS AND PUBLIC RELATIONS: The 97% ‘consensus’ and its critics"
http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/09/Warming-consensus-and-it-critics1.pdf

I'll pass on the allegation that I write tripe.

But I'll agree with you that I have nothing new to say: I do say the same kinds of things, because what happens is that the world brings forward new events and new statements about which I can write. But my position is much the same.

JKJ,

"And stop pretending your concern is intellectual integrity: you wouldn't recognise if it if slapped you in the face."

Lol!...this from the poster who displays his "integrity" by addressing a fellow poster as:

"Grim Fat Hed Lo Dung"

"Grim Fat Low Dung"

"Fat Lo Dung Thick."

Nice one, Mr Integrity....

.....

Yup....the line that jumped out for me was ".... Climate change appears to be an instrument to other ends."

All the rest of it appears to be some sort of rhetorical bubble wrap designed to deliver the usual message hidden amongst the padding.

Same old same old....

Poirot
Oh, so at last you recognise that name-calling is not legitimate argument. Since mine was only provoked by Grim’s, you realise that proves:
a) that you recognise it’s invalid in Grim’s
b) that you are using a biased double standard
c) that you are being intellectually dishonest
d) that you don’t care that what you’re saying is untrue, as usual, as we have established over and over again.

You must be feeling pretty stupid now that your gods of global warming have admitted it’s not warming. Or are you the last person on the planet to believe what you don’t even understand?

All
Let’s get one thing straight. The reason the leftists are coming out to criticise this article, is because it offends their ideology that someone should dare to suggest that the powers of government should be limited. Even when people openly advocate genocide, these big-government clowns rush in to try defend them from libertarian criticism. And what’s their argument? It offends their intellectual standards! Give us a break!

Jardine K. Jardine,

Could I urge you to join in the discussions at Climate Etc. http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/11/fraudulent-hockey-stick/

The debate is more intelligent (mostly) and a better balance between the loony Left and the rational realist Right than is the case here and on most of the Australian web sites that discuss the issues we think are important.

There are many Australians contributing on Climate Etc. Most are pretty rational and have excellent knowledge and experience to contribute. Some are humorous, some have been very senior in various positions, some are the usual far Left ideologues, and one is repetitively unpleasant and abusive (but intelligent and gives excellent info.). The host, Judith Curry, rarely intervenes.

We had a little side chat a day opr two ago when the rest of the world was asleep: http://judithcurry.com/2014/09/06/week-in-review-26/#comment-626604