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.