So now you’re just going to repeat yourself, LEGO? Take every failed argument, role them up into one post and then give ‘em one more crack?

<<I know that you social regressives have a problem with free speech…>>

People sue people for libellous claims all the time. You are yet to provide an example of a scientist actually trying to prevent contradictory evidence from surfacing.

<<The whole climate alarmist case is promoted by a coven of left wing academics…>>

Ooo, how I loves meself a good conspiracy. I bet the Illuminati was involved too.

It’s funny how you denialists are quite happy with what this same ‘secret brotherhood’ of academics say when you think a cooling period has been predicted (as had also happened in 2011). The right-wing media goes crazy. Yet when it’s shown that that was never claimed, you go back to hating them. It’s a sure sign of denialism, as is the level of conspiratorial thinking and emotive language we get from you which rises with your levels of desperation.

<<But the whole thing is coming unravelled because the scientists are standing up.>>

Yes, with their armoury full of bogus quotes and citations; when they can be bothered citing, that is.

<<A perfect example of just how desperate the alarmists are to hide the truth, is not the "homogenised" data, [etc.]>>

Obviously not. Together, we’ve demonstrated that they weren’t even attempts to hide the truth. But why use them first if they weren't the best?

<<Flannery said the dams would never fill again…>>

So if your argument fails, just keep repeating it in the hope that I go away? Is that all you’ve got now?

<<Next comes feigned moral outrage that I did not quote his words verbatim…>>

You’re quite welcome to paraphrase, but the meaning still has to be retained and you shouldn’t use quotation marks if you do.

<<Then comes your mind boggling claim that "the dams will not fill again" does not mean that "the dams will not fill again.">>

Could you point me to where I've said that?

Of course not. Silly me.

No AJ, I thought the time had come to summarise it.

AJ, I lived through a time when left wing academics claimed that the Soviet Union was the workers paradise. The Sovs even recruited Cambridge graduates to be deep cover spies for the Soviet Union. Lefties in Britain tried to sabotage the British war effort when Hitler was palsy walsy with Stalin, but they managed to reverse their position when Hitler invaded the USSR, without even crunching their ideological gears.

Here in Australia, leftist unionists did everything they could to sabotage the Australian war effort, even when their own survival depended on them supporting the troops at the front. We have seen a tearful lefty female "historian" academic admit publically on 60 Minutes that she air brushed the historical record of Tasmania, to comply with the fiction that the Tasmanian government was committed to genocide. Lastly came the "stolen generations" hoax, which was demolished by the Federal High court.

That is all on the historical record.

Now you lefties have another "cause". This time to Save The World, by saving the environment.

Look mate, if you agree with Michael Mann's claim that the oceans will rise 2 metres and drown London and New York by the end of this century, the onus is upon you and your friends to justify that extraordinary claim. The elephant in the room is, that the earth has not warmed in 16 years, and that despite the "homogenised" temperature readings and any data that was hidden by climate alarmists from the climate sceptics. The next ploy, is to claim it is the oceans that are warming. I suppose that prevents some farmer peasant who's family has faithfully recorded climate data for generations, going public and saying the figures are being cooked. Along comes another elephant in the form of a solar Maunder Minimum, and you would be best advised to jump ship with all of the other trendy rats before your sinking cause indelibly labels you a Chicken Little sucker.

LEGO,

I'm not going to get suckered into your red herring generalisation regarding alleged Soviet-admiring academics in days gone by. Whether or not academics once admired the Soviet Union, file lawsuits against libellous claims, or say that dams won't fill, says nothing about the accuracy of the actual science. It's all out there for all of us to read for ourselves. That you choose instead to engage in conspiratorial thinking by making assumptions based on generalisations about the motives and political leanings of experts speaks volumes. Not once have I had to rely on such assumptions.

Denialism vs scepticism.

Your appalling inability to accurately relay and interpret facts gives me no confidence whatsoever in the 'facts' you provide. You can't even get what I say right, and I'm right here. Either you're really dishonest, or you're really delusional. Your reluctance to directly quote myself or others makes me suspect it’s the former. Whether or not you prove that you’re right seems less of a concern for you than whether or not you can simply create the illusion that you’re right for the sake of your ‘audience’, as I have pointed out in so many of our previous discussions.

<<…if you agree with Michael Mann's claim that the oceans will rise 2 metres…>>

I have said nothing about rising ocean levels because I don’t know. You are simply committing the Shifting of the Burden of Proof fallacy here to divert from all your, as of yet, unsupported claims. Clearly you don’t think they will, so what is your evidence for this? Something that doesn't involve conspiracies?

<<…the earth has not warmed in 16 years…>>

Where is your evidence for this?

<<…and that despite the "homogenised" temperature readings and any data that was hidden by climate alarmists from the climate sceptics.>>

You still haven’t supported these claims.

<<The next ploy, is to claim it is the oceans that are warming.>>

If you have evidence against this, then I would love to see it.

<<Along comes another elephant in the form of a solar Maunder Minimum…>>

I've already addressed this. (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17494#309555 , http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17494#309569)

To AJ

I don't need to prove that too many academics are trendy lefties with a chip on their shoulder about their own people, culture, history and civilisation. Everybody already knows that, including you. Next you will be claiming that the ABC is balanced and completely unbiased, and I hope that you do. Any impartial reader of this thread will know straight away that your credibility is blown.

Your position now, is that you are just submitting that there is a scientific consensus that global warming is a fact, and that fact is beyond reproach. You are implying that only a few renegade scientists are climate change deniers, and they must be just fringe group loonies. But simply looking the line up of distinguished scientists at the 10th ICCC proves that you are wrong. At the very least, you could consider the premise that there is no scientific consensus on climate change, and that the matter is still in hot dispute.

Therefore, if you have an opinion that climate change is scientifically correct, then I have the right to an opinion that it is scientifically wrong.

The basis of my opinion is firstly, the already well appreciated premise that too many academics are utopian idealists who can always be relied upon to oppose the interests of their own people as their default position. Secondly, the fact that the numerous wild predictions about impending doom by the climate alarmists have proven to be woefully wrong. Thirdly, the habit of the climate alarmists to claim that every normal climate related extreme phenomenon could only be explained by climate change. Fourthly, the desperation of the alarmists to shut up scientists and journalists who oppose their claims with lawsuits. Fifth, the reasonable suspicion that climate alarmists are cooking the figures and hiding facts from critics that contravene their already failing predictions. And sixth, the demonstrated tactic of people like yourself to never acknowledge already widely accepted facts, and to always muddy the water and obfuscate, as the only real means to defend an indefensible position which is under assault from all sides.

LEGO,

You do if that’s what you’re claiming.

<<I don't need to prove that too many academics are trendy lefties with a chip on their shoulder about their own people, culture, history and civilisation.>>

Not everyone “knows” that. Not even you can know that. There’s certainly not universal agreement on the matter and you (among others) may be just too paranoid or have biases that cause you to interpret things in such a way.

Not to worry, if not all of them are like that (as your wording does, and should, imply), then why don’t the others just blow the lid on it all? I suppose the CIA has silenced them, eh? All these emails and not a single hint of wrongdoing.

<<But simply looking the line up of distinguished scientists at the 10th ICCC proves that you are wrong.>>

How many actually had relevant qualifications though? One of the classic denialist canards is the petition consisting of 30,000 sceptical “scientists”. The wishy-washy wording of the petition aside, virtually none of them had the relevant qualifications; many of them were computer scientists; and one of them was even a wood engineer. A wood engineer, FFS!

<<At the very least, you could consider the premise that there is no scientific consensus on climate change…>>

Ninety-seven percent of peer-reviewed articles - by scientists with the relevant qualifications, over the last three decades - in support of AGW constitutes a consensus (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf/1748-9326_8_2_024024.pdf). Make sure you know the peer-review process thoroughly before you argue that it’s 'mates checking mates' too.

<<Therefore, if you have an opinion that climate change is scientifically correct, then I have the right to an opinion that it is scientifically wrong.>>

No-one said you didn’t.

<<The basis of my opinion is firstly…>>

And the libertarians who oppose it aren’t? Either way, it only matters what the science says.

<<Secondly…>>

Such as? The IPCC’s predictions have proven to be quite conservative. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-prove-too-conservative)

<<Thirdly…>>

More the increased frequency, but not even denialists deny that.

<<Fourthly…>>

I’ve already addressed this. ((http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17494#309613, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17494#309613, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17494#309671))

<<Fifth…>>

Such as?

<<And sixth …>>

Try giving one example.

Since I have several posts up my sleeve and we’re listing reasons for our positions, here are just some reasons the denialist position smells of BS to me is the:

1. cherry-picking of data (e.g. Plimer’s “hard evidence”);
2. quote-mining;
3. eagerness to jump at anything that could be remotely interpreted as a cooling period from the same scientists whom denialists otherwise right off as Marxist, socialist, communist, Fabian, feminist, leftist, Trotskyist academics;
4. fact that they see conspiracy in consensus (and that’s when they’re not busy denying that too);
5. manufacturing of doubt and controversy (dubbed 'manufactroversy');
6. frequent use of ad hominems:

“Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hominem attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.” (http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem)

And that’s what your entire argument has now been reduced to:

One.

Big.

Ad hominem.

I'll also note that you're rarely able to answer my questions or justify your claims when I challenge them. You just ignore them and then repeat the claim a post or two later. The most glaring examples of this, so far, have been Flannery's quote-mined quote, your baseless claims regarding homogenisation, and your reading into the motives of others when filing lawsuits against libellous claims.

It's so easy to argue from a denialist position. As with creationists, you're able to fire off as many claims as you like with no regard whatsoever to the truthfulness of them, and minimal effort, because so long as you've planted seeds of doubt (whether it be for the benefit of yourself, onlookers, or the one you're debating), you've done your job.

Arguing from a more factual, scientifically-based perspective? Now that takes effort and I simply don't have the word allowance to discredit every one of your naive claims (multiple times), so instead I have to ask you to provide evidence so we can deal with claims one at a time.

Only to be ignored. Again.