CCS... it should be something to laugh at, if it wasn't a serious waste of public money. This scam is currently funded by governments (more than 6 research grants in NSW alone, mainly to fossil fuel companies). Sure compressed C02 can be useful to boost recovery from oil reservoirs (like Gorgon Project). Well if its that useful, let the owners of Gorgon pay for it, without grants and "offset" payments. This is a prime example of the industry milking the public purse, similar to like the renewables subsidy scam.

Also, it assume CO2 is a pollutant. Hence its just another wasteful, unscientific gravy train to abuse the system created by the Climate Change Cultist and the behind the scene vested interests. If you want to pay farmers offsets for carbon for growing plants, that's just as wasteful use of public (ultimately our tax) funds... but at least that grows trees and food. Remember, increased C02 has lead to increased leaf area index since satellites started measuring it since the 1980's! I the plants are healthier and primary productivity is rising!

When will the community wake up and ignore this stuff and stop listening to environmental alarmists and incompetent government bureaucracies that support this nonsense!

This really is a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World... run by self-important idiots... on behalf of a gullible, complacent population.

Maybe the wacky self extinction environmentalists cult are correct, ...the sooner Gaia wipes us human parasites off the face of the planet the better. Perhaps maybe then more intelligent species like dolphins, golden retrievers, those pesky white ice (Hitchhikers Guide) or even a COVID-19 Virus derivative can make a better job of it. Certainly we humans don't deserve to rule the planet, when we accept blindly the CC cultism and solutions like CCS.

I'd take two Panadol after spitting these words out in frustration... but the idiots have cleared them from the shop shelves in fear of "the end of the world" COVID_19 pandemic.. Maybe walking the dogs ( suitably "socially distanced") will do instead.

While one can agree with most of this, some of it is just plain wrong.

And that is the erroneous assertion that CO2 is harmless. It's not harmless, in fact, if concentrations in the earth's atmosphere rise above 20%, we oxygen breathers would all asphyxiate!

Carbon capture would cost annual billions and force power prices to treble or quadruple. So-called clean coal power stations would have a maximum 6% energy coefficient. And that would make generating power in such stations the costliest electricity on the planet!

And serve the pecuniary interests of the renewable installers as a veritable tide flow of cash!

Whereas, if we removed the diabolically dumb, self-imposed prohibition on nuclear power. We could, as the world's safest repository for nuclear waste, i.e., unspent fuel, fuel with a retained enormous energy component!

Use it as fuel, we'd be paid annual billions to safely store, but not before we've extracted the thousands and thousands of years worth of free to us, energy still retained therein, via MSR technology and perfectly feasible! And done in complete walk-away safety. Repeat COMPLETE WALK-AWAY, SAFETY!

Certainly far less vulnerable as underground solutions than Lucas Heights! Built and deployed with the money we'd earn as a repository! Underground solutions would enable explosives to be placed to bury them/any, and miscreants in the event of attempted sabotage!

The solar panel installers are going to climb all over this with Fukushima and Chernobyl trembling from their cash parched lips!

Even as natural plateauing has made many of their operations currently unviable! Sorry, Pete.

Anybody who doesn't now understand that our future is absolutely a nuclear-powered one and we need to crack with the transition ASAP, is clearly a couple of sheep short in the top paddock! TBC.
Alan B.

Thanks Viv,

"The quantities of gases that CCS would need to handle are enormous and capital and operating costs will be horrendous."

This is correct of course, and has been known for 30 years. It's as uneconomic as renewables and can never be economic.

The only known source of energy that can provide all the world's energy needs - including petrol, diesel, jet fuel and oil - for thousands of years is nuclear. Here's a short opinion piece by moi on a paper by moi:

"What Could Have Been – If Nuclear Power Deployment Had Not Been Disrupted"
https://www.thegwpf.com/what-could-have-been-if-nuclear-power-deployment-had-not-been-disrupted/

For goodness sake Alan. 'If it gets to 20% we will be asphyxiated...'? Don't be so condescending.

Address the issue namely CCS stupidly and the incompetent bureaucrats who are funding this scam with our money!

Once you have done that you can tell us all about MSR as per usual.

While I remember, I recall asking you to submit an article to OLO ( in 1000words) that highlights the pros, cons and costs of MSR and why its not being taken up. You never know, it might even convince more people to realize the value of nuclear power.

I look forward to reading the piece soon.

Yours, respectively

and taking the dogs for some fresh air!

I wish people would stop calling dioxide ‘carbon’.

1. CCS is a stupid Scam

2. Renewables being cost effective is a SCAM, and will never supply enough power

3. Prohibiting Nuclear power is a Scam and hypocritically insulting to an Australian population 'governed' by baby-boomers who smoked too much pot, promoted free love/sex and have never done a full days work in their life..... and now run our country incompentently.

4. Climate change cultism is a SCAM

5. Carbon dioxide is GOOD.

What else do we need to accept?

Hmmm, ah yes.... "Guiness is Good for you!" belated happy St Patricks Day ta ya all!

I am reliably informed by one of my friends who works in the power industry in the Latrobe Valley that they actually have a pilot plant which is doing just that.

David

I rarely, if ever, agree with this writer but this time I do.
Not completely for his reasons though.
Both "Clean Coal" and CCS are oxymorons, ridiculously expensive and totally impractical.
Solar is nuclear.

While we are on the mania with carbon dioxide and “zero emissions”, think about this:

The China virus could be helping us to see what 'zero emissions' will look like, according to Rafe Champion in Catallaxy Files this morning.

"Planes parked up, cruise ships anchored, airports deserted, tourists not touring, supermarket shelves bare, Disneyland shut, borders closing, motor races cancelled, no fans in the stands, smelters and factories closing, travel banned, oil and coal prices crashing, stock markets plunging, businesses closing, bankruptcies rising, hotels and motels unoccupied, politicians panicking, barbies cold – – looks like zero emissions is almost here."

The CO2 is the bi-product of a process which is using brown coal to produce hydrogen. The Japanese have already built a ship to carry the hydrogen which will be under refrigeration and high pressure. Our chief scientist Finkel seems to think this is the best process since the invention of sliced bread. (my words, not his}. The exhausted oil wells in Bass Strait are the intended storage places for the CO2. Sounds a bit dicey to me.
David

Wow, what a weird combination of idiotic claims and statements of the obvious!

Plants are not short of food. CO2 warms the atmosphere. The physics is well known, humans have been responsible for a 50% rise in atmospheric CO2 levels since preindustrial times, and temperatures have been rising all round the world. Yet the idiots on this board think that coal is good for humanity therefore this can't be happening!

The fossil fuel lobby knew it didn't make sense to bet everything on suppressing the truth; they could only fool some of the people some of the time. So instead they decided to promote carbon capture and storage. It was known from the start that it was uneconomic, but renewables were expensive then so they thought they might have a chance. And there are quite a lot of suitable aquifers around. But even back then, it was difficult to find backers. And now that renewables are cheap, CCS has no chance.

Sorry Aiden, but your wrong on two fronts.

1.Increased C02 does improve plant productivity and greenhouse experiments in the early 1990's that proved it. Now so well acknowledged that commercial greenhouses enhance CO2 to promote production figures and are a major user of bottle C02. That's about the only value you could get from using CCS liquified CO2!

2. You blindly state that C02 rise has caused temp rise and that's proven. Well know, as previous OLO authors have pointed out, Plass (1956) theory remains that and is unproven. Just because models have created fake algorithms to simulate the link so they can run they modesl does not proof it! I assume that's what you interpret as "the physics has shown. If not provide me with the papers that have shown it, rather than modelled it. Many have tried to run atmospheric CO2/temp realworld experiments and NONE have been successful. The ONLY useful one of such experiments was by Idso (a proper climate scientist) in the US in the 1970's which showed the link DID NOT EXIST!

On an additional note, please explain why the Vostok cores of the late 1970's show the correlation between CO2 and Temp … BUT, yes BUT as with other cores it shows that CO2 rise LAGS (i.e. FOLLOWS Temp rise) by 100-800 years.

As say again, when will the populous wise up and declare this whole thing as the most destructive scientific scam ever inflicted upon us.

It makes turning lead into gold seem respectable and plausiable.

While the sheep follow pied pipers like Gore, Flannery and Thunberg into the depths of educational oblivion, I hope I live long enough to see them and the cohort of fake modelling so-called-climate science modellers tried, and punitively dealt with for MASS DESCEPTION and CORUPTION. If we are lucky, they will bring back Hanging, drawing and quartering just for them! Now that's a Foxtel Prime Event ticket I would gladly pay for!

The author had better tell RBT or booze buses that small concentrations (be it C2H6O or CO2) don't make any difference. I do agree those who are still advocating CCS in 2020 are bull artists stalling for time. The Gorgon project was to have separated CO2 from unburnt natgas via pressure swing absorption then injected it into saline water below Barrow Island WA. Under the 'safeguards mechanism' part of the Emissions Reduction Fund they were set a benchmark level. Chevron told the feds they couldn't meet it so it was dropped. That is a small clue to just how truthful CCS stakeholders will be.

Same goes for other CO2 disposal methods such as tree planting in the age of mega bushfires. Just not reliable. What works is replacing coal with nuclear but the antis won't allow it

Alson Jane. I did submit said article and laid out chapter and verse why our future has no choice but to be nuclear powered. But it was declined.

As for CO2? Absolutely marvellous in greenhouses, where the bugs are all asphyxiated and the plant growth promoted! And for that reason and increased moisture aspiration, referred to as, the greenhouse effect!

CO2 is the heaviest of the gases and concentrates as so-called marsh gas,(ground-hugging, early morning fog) which has asphyxiated the unwary who walked into it.

It also reflects some of the infra red that would normally escape back to space. And along with other greenhouse gases, methane, nitrous oxide to mention a couple, trap more heat don't allow it to escape. And as such along with the increased moisture retention in the atmosphere, pushes ambient temperatures up.

And during a waning phase of the sun when it should be cooling and the ice advancing. Not what we've had/are having!

I draw your attention to our sister planet Venus, also like us, in the habitable zone and inhabitable as the hottest planet in our solar system!

And would be otherwise but for the CO2 CONTENT OF AN OXYGEN FREE, SULPHUR LADEN ATMOSPHERE, WHERE ALL THE OCEANS HAVE EVAPORATED TO BECOME PART OF A FAR HEAVIER ATMOSPHERE THAN OURS! AND IT'S ONLY THE CO2 AND EVAPORATE THAT COMBINE TO MAKE IT THE HOTTEST!

I get that you are ideologically opposed to the evidence-based climate change science. but not to evidence-based economic rationale for a Carbon-free, nuclear future and with it a drought proofed Australia.
Take care, Alan B.

Taswegian, you are right of course, but the idiots are never going to give in. We could be using nuclear power to produce all the electricity, hydrogen, ammonia etc,. that we will ever need to run the world, but the lilly livered government haven't got the guts to do it. CCS is never going to be a long term solution.
David

Alison Jane,
Though extra CO2 does have some enhancement effect on plant growth rates, my point was that it's not actually needed. Indeed the preindustrial levels were at the upper end of the range they evolved with. And in some conditions, higher CO2 levels have a detrimental effect, inhibiting trees' uptake of iron.

That CO2 absorbs and reemits infrared is not a contentious issue. It's based not on climate modelling but on observations and quantum theory. I'm not going to waste time tracking down old scientific papers that explain the basics; I do not concern myself with trifles!
Do you understand what scientific theory is? It isn't merely a hypothesis; it's something that fits the facts and explains them.

The simple fact is the atmosphere is warming far more than other factors combined can explain. Yet you seem to want to bet our future on CO2 not being the cause of the problem. Why?

As for the Vostok ice cores, I suggest you read http://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

Part 1
Superb Aiden, …I wrote this last night, but had to await my OLO 4 comment 24hour limit expiration

Your own CCCulist ideology (driven by “ 97 consensus” fake belief) is a classic.. Your chosen Ref to Skeptical Science. This 40+ network of dedicated CC cultists claims to provide balance. Yet its main man is a prolific "climate communicator" with book publications like "Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand". This is an infamous site that was established to attack anyone who dared question the AGW “97%-consensus-settled” science. It is notorious and voluminously aggressive in defending your cult and attacking anyone who questions their lucrative gravy boat!!.

Having said that, I suggest everyone follow Aiden’s link and if you have time search through it and if you dare engage with it (only for brave sadomasochists). This article is a cracker example for two fundamental reasons.

Firstly, it mixes and matches records to suit their beliefs, Ice cores for the pre “human era” and then less reliable proxies (tree rings etc) for the “human era where they claim Co2 is the killer most influential gas on the planet (while downplaying the most influential, water vapour). The “re analysis work (post Vostok) mirrors all the corrupt practices of Mike ‘the hockey stick’ Mann and Phil Jones et al exposed in 2009 Climate gate email scam. When the Vostok cores were published originally (a decade before the Margaret thatcher launched the CC scam), Greenhouse Gas bandwagon had no wheels and the Ice ages coming. It is worth reading and watching the “definitive” denialist video stuff… Goebbels would be proud of them!! It is also fascinating to see them acknowledge the pre and post influence of the Milankovitch cycles, something (like solar weather) climate change cultists and modellers treat as trifles, just like you Aiden!

See Part 2

Part 2 Sorry an Alan B multi-part-post

Secondly and most significant with this paper, there are over 600 pro and against (many of which are I am sure Dorothy Dixers) comments. So, one must step back and realise that the so called “97% consensus/settled” science spruiked by mega starts like Core, Obama, Flannery and Thunberg is totally FAKE. For those who don’t recall, check out the genesis of that figure from a Media lecture in Queensland (Cook 2013).

Aiden, do tell me your ‘climate science’ credentials. As you are too lazy (or unable) to trifle with Plass’s 1956 15-page theory on the Greenhouse Effect, you must be a youngster who prefers the “Janet and John” version i.e. “ How Dare You” Greta kiddies version. No serious scientist I know would call this work a “trifle”, but then given you opinion of it, you would probably categorize the works of Einstein, Newton, Mohamed or the Bible as mere historical ‘trifle/trivial’ documents.

As someone who has studied (post PhD), uni lectured, published internationally in A-grade journals , run 2000+ monitoring networks and actual solved real world environmental problems in Air, Land, Water and oceans. (ie the water cycle) I don’t need amateurs like you (or Alan B) to offer up your Janet and John simplistic lessons in hour Solar radiation interacts with our planet or the carbon cycle

Re Alan B’s comment on me, please read the preceding post it states I DO THINK NUCLEAR is GOOD. And have so since I first studied it (and renewables) as a student back in 1979. Your obsession with your MSR seems to blind you from reading what others actual write. I am also sorry that OLO did not see you article suitable for publication. I would like to see it. Perhaps you could post it in 2-4 350 word chunks and post them on the next article you comment on.

I would sincerely like to see your piece . Aidan ,that’s what real scientists compulsively do.. we love seeing and discuss alternative/different opinions and views.

Happy Bog Roll hunting to all!

Alison Jane,
I don't get it - if you really have the credentials you say you have, why are you so pig ignorant of the basics that you didn't even understand the reason for the lag? Why are you so intellectually dishonest that you resort to mass ad hominems (libellously labelling scientists "cultists" when you don't like what they have to say)?

Do you doubt the ability of CO2 to absorb and reemit infrared, despite the overwhelming evidence from both theory and measurement?

The reason the Milankovitch cycles are regarded as trifles is because they have so little effect compared to other factors; they certainly can't explain the current warming.

And yes, I do include Plass's groundbreaking 1956 paper in the "trifles" category because it did not tell me anything about the effects of atmospheric CO2 beyond what I already knew.

What a strange article! Viv Forbes is to be commended for explaining the exorbitant costs and problems in carbon capture and storage.

But hey! Read on, and you find that the author is a climate change denialist! An odd argument, but still, interesting information in here.

Proud/experienced/sceptical scientist, YUPP! You should look at your cultist believes. Science is question driven. I personally taught some of your climate modelling priests, and while you may belief they are pure a snowflakes, the rest of the scientific world worry over the credibility impact of this small niche of scam artists.

For 35 years, I have only discussed this BS among trusted scientists. Now retired and beyond castigation by you beloved politically driven cult, I can speak out.

Two things to ask your conscience. You, I guess are a globalist left-leaning open-borders individual... You probably cheered when Maggie Thatcher died, yet check the facts and the launch of this scam in the late 1980's (a tactic, assumed to be short-term by her, to bury the coal miners). You must love Greta the wonder Kid, but do you praise the Maggie T, the first CC hero?

Second, if you think my brief background is respectable, then ask your self the question why?. I have NOTHING to gain from speaking my mind, other than childish, ill-informed, abuse from narrow-minded worshippers like you. BUT you, and your like with your left/greenie/one world government agenda, have all to gain... influence, money, grants, egomania, tin-pride. Fair enough its a free world... well unless you imprison us in your utopian/socialist nirvana where Gaia will euthanise climate realists like me. If that happened, I wonder which new propaganda purge will you slavishly follow. …. because that's what cultists need, as they talk down alternate views to promote your happy cult. Your nothing better than those who used to drown witches, to proof their innocence.

Happy culting and spoofing your way thru life. and please do supply me with a brief summary of your climate science credentials, as opposed your "trifling" comments. If your bored and can learn to read real science, why not read Plass 1956, and instead of "Skeptical Science" propaganda, read the detailed analysis done by non-gravy train scientists. I doubt you will, and return to your double skim lattes, with avo-toast washed down by organic-Pinot-Greggio, and an organic de-nicoteened cuba cigar!

I continue to enjoy the comments on this site. It is such an interesting exercise. I try to find the time to read these, and also to read the comments on Independent Australia. What a wide chasm apparently exists between the readers of each of these online journals!
It is sadly, indicative of Australia's divided society, especially divided on issues of climate change and of the nuclear industry.

WELL Said, ChristinaMac1. Glad you enjoy the debate. Its healthy and Like you I always check my media across the spectrum from left the right, although I must admit to becoming disappointed that ABC is so partisan... Its not Our ABC as the tell us but Theirs.

In my opinion the majority of articles are better written than professional journos and the authors freely put a lot of effort into their pieces and many offer interesting off-beat/tangential views, which is hard and needs discipline in a 1000 word article. Discussion can be good, but from experience is often a battlefield for some know it al pseudo-intellectuals. But its healthy, provided they don't fall down into insulting, bullying and propaganda so common on the popular social media.

I have written and observed other UK and USA e-journals, and they are lame, tame and often light, so OLO readers are privileged.

Aiden, wakey-wakey….are you there? You all-knowing Trifler of Plass.

What are your climate science credentials.. Nothing personally identifiable just general stuff.

We 'actual real world' climate scientists only call you cultists because you display the 14 core behavioural attributes of Cults. And if you stopped slandering those of us who have knowledge and opinions you despise and calling us sceptics and deniers, then I would be prepared to label you with other descriptors... what polite words would you like that accords you with the appropriate stature your ego's would like? By the way Sceptic is OK, but the denier is damned disrespectful to past and current oppressed populations.

Yours kindly, "Pig-ignorant" AJ, a humble, non-vested interest climate realist.

ps and if you Gaia god and Greta have their way, we 60 year-old inconvenient 'Pig-ignorant/denialist/sceptics' will be sent to Hell and damnation by the COVID-19. I can't wait to see you CC cultists propaganda that relates COVID-19 and all post industrial pandemics as the devine retribution caused by CO2 and big bad CC bogyman.

Happy Self isolation/socially distanced weekend, Grand Fubah Aiden.

ps I am curious, are you CCcultists the ones buying up all the toilet roll?.. is it a way off increasing the chances of wiping out us old, "pig-ignorant" climate realists? if so, dumb strategy, as of all the 9 symptoms for the cold,flu and Covid -19, the runs is the one COOVID rarely produces

A.J. "But its healthy, provided they don't fall down into insulting, bullying and propaganda so common on the popular social media".

It is a pity that you don't follow your own advice. Your arguments might then be more convincing. Do try and be a little more constructive. Your PH.Ds don't seem to have taught you the value of reasoned argument. Take some advice from a real old bloke.
David

Alison Jane,
I see you're avoiding my questions and doubling down on your insults and ad hominems!

I'm not a cultist, I'm a Christian. I certainly don't worship Gaia, but I'm not aware of anyone who ever has (apart from the ancient Greeks of course, but I'm pretty sure no supporters of the Gaia hypothesis believe it to actually be the goddess it was named after). And how many people have you encountered who actually believed Gaia to be God? For me it was just one blogger; everyone else making any sort of equivalence was doing so in a pathetic attempt to denigrate their opponents' positions.

The Gaia hypothesis is just a hypothesis. Or at most, several hypotheses (as there are several different versions of it). It is not scientific theory and never will be. Nor is it anything to do with my position - up until the above paragraph, you're the only one to mention Gaia on this thread.

And I go by the evidence. Whereas you seem to ignore the evidence and fail to understand the theory. The evidence of that is your having to ask me about why CO2 lagged temperature change in the Vostok ice cores.

If your credentials were as claimed, I think you'd realise just how ridiculous your gravy train hypothesis was. And I doubt that you'd take a position that contravened the Razors of both Ockham and Hanlon!

If you're offended when you're called a denialist than you deserve to be offended! You're not merely a sceptic; you make false and absurd accusations about the scientists whose positions you disagree with. Intellectually your position is dishonest and commands disrespect! I don't know what you have to gain but I'm guessing it's a consistent world view. Did someone convince you that taking action on climate change was incompatible with capitalism?

(tbc)

...
I'm no fan of Thatcher (her misunderstanding of economics caused huge problems for Britain, many of which still haven't been overcome) but she was human. People generally aren't entirely good nor entirely bad, and I think her bad policies were based on good intentions. Anyway, wasn't it John Major's government that closed down most of Britain's coal mines, due to coal being cheaper to import from Australia?

BTW I googled your "14 core behavioural attributes of Cults". Found a list of 15 of them. I didn't fit in any of them at all, though you and other denialists would doubtless regard my disdain for your intellectually dishonest position as proof I fitted one of them. That still leaves the other 14 though.

I did read Plass's paper before writing my previous response. It gave me some insight into the state of physics in the mid 20th century, but it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know about the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere. Is that at all surprising? We don't need to read Einstein's papers to know that E=Mc^2.

As for my own credentials, there are two reasons why I'm not going to post them. Firstly, credentials don't prevent your disdain for those with whom you disagree.
Secondly (and more importantly) this isn't about me; it's about the physics.
And that brings us back to the other question you failed to answer: do you doubt the ability of CO2 to absorb and reemit infrared?

Aiden, "May you god be with you" as The excommunicated catholic brilliant Comedian, namely the late Dave Allen always finished his shows. He had the skills an balls, but only 9.5 fingers to challenge the then oppressive RC cultish norms that ruled the Rep of Ireland in the 1970s... do you realise how dangerous that was?

Watch him and laugh at his irreverent, definitely non-PC humour (it didn't exist then).

I only wrote the last three post to answer your posts. and that's done. You have your Cultish beliefs ( if not accepted and I am "pretend 40 year global experienced scientist" who "claims" these credentials. While you fear exposure of your credentials, relying probably only on your youngster indoctrination from school/university, while relying on that well-funded propaganda factory "SKEPTICAL SCIENCE" Blog site.

Some day you might learn to think outside your square mind, and I reckon you might grow up and also learn that throwing insults ain't smart... MATE.

Take care 'old' chap.

Aiden,
Ps forgot to say, thank you for replying, that was a polite respectful thing to do, given the recent exchange of posts. Lets hope ChristinaMac1 appreciates it!
Cheers
AJ

pps to Aiden, the fact that you can't see CC Cultism having ANY of the 14, sorry 15 characteristics of Cultism, says it all... You too must be a denialist! welcome to your self created club!!

Bye-bye and sleep well in your inner-city, cottonwool lined cocoon..... protected from the big-bad-real world outside by a hi-tech security system, and access to a police station nearby, unlike the rest of Australia

We "pig-ignorant" climate realists would never want such cosy, non-sceptical existence..... so you can rest well in your organic, virgin, chemical free duck-down duvet!. Hope its been COVID-19 free certified!

Alison Jane,
I see you're still hurling insults and false accusations, yet ignoring the questions I ask you.
I am not, and never have been, a Roman Catholic.

My credentials are, as I said, irrelevant - this is about the physics. It is your ignorance of the physics that makes me suspect your credentials are fake (well, that and the "gravy train" assertion). However this is not really about your credentials either, but why you're ignoring the physics and resorting to denialism. So I ask again: did someone fool you into thinking taking action on climate change was incompatible with capitalism?

And yet again I ask you: do you doubt CO2's ability to absorb and reemit infrared?

Of course dentists like you loathe skepticalscience: it's a site that's set up to explain the truth, whereas you want the public to be kept as ignorant as you wilfully choose to be. You'd really benefit from reading the whole site; it might shatter many of your illusions.

As for behavioural signs of cults, you're the delusional one. My response is quite rational. Here's why none of them apply:

1) The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.
THERE IS NO LEADER! Sure there are leaders in research, modelling, communication and campaigning for action. But the science doesn't follow the leaders; the leaders follow the science. And there's no overall hierarchy; the only activity which is dominated by one organization (the IPCC) is metaresearch. That depends on the research and modelling, not the other way round!

2) Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.
SCIENCE ENCOURAGES QUESTIONING. But unlike the denialists who seem to think the questions themselves are enough to invalidate widely held beliefs, the scientists actually look at the answers!

3) Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).
SIMPLY NOT DONE!

(tbc)

...
4) The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry�or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).
NOT APPLICABLE due to the lack of overall leaders. And the idea that scientists would surrender that much control of their lives is absurd.

5) The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar�or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).
AGAIN, NO LEADER, so immediately most of this is obviously not applicable. You're probably thinking the bit about saving humanity overrides all this. But it is the actions of humanity as a whole, not an elite group, which will cause or avert catastrophe. So again the similarity to a cult is just an error of perception on your part.

6) The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.
CERTAINLY NOT TRUE OVERALL, though there are some smallish groups such as Extinction Rebellion that it arguably applies to. But in general where there's conflict it is not with the wider society but with astroturfed denialist groups.

7) The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).
AGAIN, THERE IS NO LEADER!

8) The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members' participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).
NOT DONE despite denials attempts to spin certain emails that way.

(tbc)

9) The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.
NO LEADER

10)Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.
NO LEADER; NO SUBSERVIENT RELATIONSHIP

11) The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.
NO MEMBERSHIP!

12) The group is preoccupied with making money.
WORKING FOR THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY WOULD BE FAR MORE LUCRATIVE!

13) Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.
NO MEMBERSHIP!

14) Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.
NO MEMBERSHIP!

15) The most loyal members (the “true believers”) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.
THERE'S NOBODY TO BE LOYAL TO, and certainly nobody who'd commit reprisals. Nor anyone advocating withdrawal from society (with the possible exception of a few of the nuttier denialists who want to make them easier to ignore).

Face it, your likening your opponents to a cult is based on your prejudice, not reality. It is a process of extreme intellectual dishonesty, using absurd stereotypes to avoid having to deal with the facts.

Thanks for that insight, I appreciate your triple post, Equally deluslanal as you accuse me, but its niece you trying the denialits " glass slipper shoe.. like Cinderella stories be beloved by kiddies. Saint Great of ARC will love the glass slippery Cullist 15 point denial!

I thought Grimacing Greta was you current leader, preceeded by Flim-Flam Tim, Al Core, Phil Jones, Mick the stick Mann...…. and Gaia via Jim Lovelock, who I know and have met! So unlike me you only have opinions, and no climate science experience.

As for the questions I won't answer, their so "trifling' even by dumb dogs would ignore them.

Hippo COVID-Isolation Day, weeks, Months that lie ahead. Maybe you might actually have time to Plass 1956 et al, rather than spoof that you have and could understand it!... whoops naughty inner monolog escaped there!

Alison Jane,
Firstly, apologies for the autocorrect error on the second part of the triple post: the last sentence should read:
NOT DONE despite denialists' attempts to spin certain emails that way.

Secondly, though you accuse me of being delusional, I notice you haven't pointed out even a single logical flaw, nor any demonstrably false assumptions in what I've said.

Thirdly, you're liberally flinging around insults and false accusations - yet when I explain why those have no basis in reality, you neither change your position nor provide any evidence to support it.

Fourthly, when trying to determine why you're clinging to such an illogical position, the questions I ask are far from trivial. Although it could be that you realise how any answer you give would highlight the absurdity of your position. Is it that?

Fifthly, regarding leaders: Greta Thumberg is a leading campaigner, but do you seriously think she's setting the agenda for the research the scientists do?

And finally, namedropping doesn't impress me. And your intellectual dishonesty would have negated the effect of your credentials even if you hadn't given me reason to doubt them.

I tried, but you must join your 'muckers' like Steel Red-nuts and Alan B in your all-knowing 97% consensus, settled science pseudo-intellectual world with Grimmacing-Greta as your leader/mascot puppet.

Fine, be happy.

As per 'name dropping', I assume my mention of Lovelock. Well when I had to meet him I was the last man-standing and most junior lecture tasked to help a Phd student finish her thesis which he was a 'industry' supervisor. Lovely Man, whose mind I admire and have read most of his Gaia books. In my hard realist climate profession, 'name-droping him' would have no value. It obviously does in your CC cultist world. I doubt he would concur, as he is a questioning scientist thinker, open even to "pig-ignorant" minds like me. Hope you have read his books ( particularly recent stuff, unlike Plass 1956, which I doubt you have or could.

Again I say be happy and as the Hitchhikers Guide book 1 whale said... "so long and thanks for all the fish". Well worth reading, funny, satirical and inciteful and I reccommed the complete set of followup.

While I can't accept your views, you can write and seem like an intelligent he/she/it. So whay not sling slander at me and write an article on OLO, I would read it.