LEGO,

Could you point me to something supporting your claim that Tim Flannery said "the dams will never fill again"? I can't find where it was that he said that.

Could you also please tell me what the email exchange was regarding these alleged arguments about to hiding information that "proved that their little theory was wrong"? I can't find anything on that either.

One last request. Could you please tell me when Timothy Ball was sued in order to silence him? I know about the libel cases, but they had nothing to do with silencing him. It is possible, after all, to argue against anthropogenic climate change without being libellous.

Links and quotes would be good.

Thanks.

Tough questions there A J. These blokes make big statements and never follow up.
The instigator of this thread has not come back either.

Dam predictions wrong: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/slippery-when-wet-tim-flannerys-climate-warnings-questioned-after-recent-flooding/story-e6freuzi-1226355256833

Flannery predicts parts of Sydney will be swamped by rising sea levels: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/rising-sea-levels-will-swamp-parts-of-sydney-20101215-18yak.html

AJ, you are one of the biggest sceptics in the Forum, how is you buy into the man-made climate change propaganda without giving the any credence to the alternative perspectives? I'm honestly surprised we even disagree on this issue.

You've probably already written him off, but if not have a look at some of Bob Carter's work. Bob is certainly as qualified as Tim Flannery.

"Could you also please tell me what the email exchange was regarding these alleged arguments about to hiding information that "proved that their little theory was wrong"?

There is nothing that says their theories are wrong exactly but that the primary scientists were manipulating and hiding data that didn't fit the models. Michael Mann's hockey stick theory was a good example and has been totally debunked since.

The gist is here: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2010/07/climategate-and-the-big-green-lie/59709/

The hockey stick theory debunked: http://joannenova.com.au/2009/12/fraudulent-hockey-sticks-and-hidden-data/

ConservativeHippie,

Those links don’t bail LEGO out from my first question to him. Your first link even perpetuates the same BS claim LEGO made. But at least it wasn’t dishonest enough to use quotation marks. Either way, AGW doesn’t stand or fall on what one guy says.

And no, the ‘hockey stick’ has not been debunked. It has been refined and corrected over time like anything else in science, but it hasn’t been debunked. “Hockey stick” seems to have become a locution for denialists like the so-called “missing link” we keep hearing about from creationists. The links you provided (with their doctored graphs and all) are debunked at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CY4Yecsx_-s.

But perhaps you could tell me what this data was that was being deliberately omitted and hidden, in case we don't hear from LEGO?

(A word of caution: I already know what you're going to say because it's such a frequently discredited bit of quote-mined BS that gets passed around denialist circles.)

<<AJ, you are one of the biggest sceptics in the Forum, how is you buy into the man-made climate change propaganda without giving the any credence to the alternative perspectives? I'm honestly surprised we even disagree on this issue.>>

Did you not understand anything I said in my last post to you? (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17458#309048) Scepticism isn’t about just rejecting every claim for the sake of it. There is a very big difference between denialism and scepticism too. Michael Shermer (a prominent, and actual, sceptic) outlined the difference between the two in a New Scientist article that can be found at http://www.seccca.org.au/2010/05/18/state-of-denial-a-new-scientist-article-to-distinguish-between-sceptics-and-deniers.

Actual sceptics fight many forms of nonsense such as religion, clairvoyants and astrology; conspiracy theories such as the 9/11 conspiracies, chemtrails, alien abduction claims and the JFK assassination; and pseudoscience such as creationism, the anti-GMO movement, alternative medicine, vaccine denial, and yes, climate change denial.

Denialism isn’t just an insulting term used to attack others with differing views, it’s an actual recognised form of junk-science/quackery (http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/flavors-of-nonsense).

Dear LEGO,

If your politics doesn't allow you to accept the science that is well and good but for you to put forward this line is a little too much;

“But if you want to keep thinking that the world is flat because a new bunch of moral puritans and ideologues masquerading as scientists say that it is so, then go right ahead.”

The flat earthers were famous for not accepting the scientific evidence that the world is indeed a sphere.

It most aptly applies to those who can not accept, despite all the evidence, that humans are responsible for warming the planet.

We of course look upon flat earthers more with bemusement rather than derision and naturally question their intelligence. I find it poignant that so many of your posts contain phrases like;

“Some educated, all seeing, super intellect, world saver, you are.”

“if you really want to display to the world how intelligent you are,”

“If you wish to display your credentials as a true world saver, who is oh, so much more intelligent than the hoi polloi”.

I'm wondering if you ever felt like taking to time to tease out the real driver behind your rather bombastic attacks on those who accept the science of global warming.