Wizofaus writes:

“That you [sic trust] can the word of an organisation such as the Lavoisier Institute, with a vested interest in protecting the profits of energy-intensive industries, over thousands of professional scientists who have committed their life's study and work to understand climate systems and the Earth's ecology is odd indeed.”

Not odd at all. It is very reasonable to assume that industrial scientists are not only knowledgeable and well qualified in their field of expertise. Further it can be safely assumed that they have “current hands” on experience.

One other point industry has its reputation to consider and therefore will not put out misleading information. I am referring here especially to the “facts.”

The subject I know best is the field of nuclear energy and I can find little discrepancy between the referred scientific literature and industrial papers. I see no reason why this should not hold true in the area of anthropogenic climate change.

Do you know of any good reason why one should accept the political flavoured utterances of advocacy groups (such as Greenpeace, FOE, ACF etc) on trust?

I agree that industry papers on nuclear energy are largely scientifically sound. Realistically however, no industry ever publishes research demonstrating that there is a serious problem with the way it operates. For almost any manufactured pollutant that we now universally regard as dangerous, one can find a historical document published by various industries supposedly proving that the substance was not harmful.

I don't listen to Greenpeace or the ACF particularly, though I occasionally read their literature, and judge it as best as I can on its merit.

Anti-green, it’s good you ‘came out’ – recognition of your denial is the 1st step to recovery, only eleven steps to go … hang in there mate!

Now, let’s see … the Lavoisier Group.

Ahhh yes, the fossil fuel and mining lobbyists comprised of ‘AGW deniers’; past task lobbying JWH and Co. against signing Kyoto.

According to the Lavoisier Group, ‘it’s a lie that:

• The twentieth century has been the hottest in recorded history and the last decade the hottest ever.

• Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have already caused global warming and must be severely curtailed to prevent future climate problems.

• Because of anthropogenic emissions, ice sheets are melting and sea levels are rising.’

Lavoisier Group ideologues refer to ‘the global warming scam’ and conclude: ‘So many people, and institutions, have been caught up in the web of deceit … that the integrity of Western science is seriously at risk.’

Yep … the Lavoisier Group have done more than any other in Australia over the last decade to prevent any effective action to reduce Australia’s burgeoning greenhouse gas emissions – a classic case of Stage 1 ‘head-up-your-butt’.

Natural climate change has happened in the past and will happen in the future. This does not preclude AGW, exacerbated of course by our misuse of energy and our poor land management practices, perpetuated by the likes of the Lavoisier Group.

The Lavoisier Group ‘deniers’ are extremely suspicious of the motives and integrity of non-industry scientists, and suspect the WMO, the UN, numerous scientific academies, rational thinking Big Business, church leaders and even governments themselves, of a global ‘conspiracy in perpetuating this scam.’

IMHO, the real problem we have today is not about science; it is about ideologues in a ‘state of denial.’

Those with a vested interest e.g. Lavoisier Group, will say anything to maintain the status quo by a ‘philosophy of inaction’ to ensure power and control over the minds and wealth of the masses.

You bet I am aware of the Lavoisier Group’s submission. The ‘Greenhouse Mafia’ even say they have the support of the Pope … simply astounding!

Denying the deniers, is there no end to this nonsense.

Most individuals have fundamental concerns about organisations who deny science because of some ideological agenda.

Again, the real problem we have today is not about the science … it's about those with a vested interest saying and doing anything to maintain the status quo … to ensure (their) power and control over the minds and wealth of the masses.

Too many people think that ‘action on climate change’ is, or should be, determined by political or ideological allegiance, regardless of what the science is telling us – this is wrong.

Environmentalism does not belong to the domain of the ‘Left’ – just look at Malcolm Turnbull and the ‘Governator’ – both from the conservative side of politics.

The *dark* or radical greens should pull their head in, often doing more damage to their cause than they realise. And Gore, while he spread the message - in the eyes of many Americans, is the devil incarnate because of his liberal (democrat) politics.

No body is denying the deniers. On the contrary, the deniers want to gag the science ("is there no end to this nonsense?"

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=d489ec1a-36d4-41fb-b692-6c90faa0dcaa

This is not nonsense. This is a typical case of ‘gagging’ the scientists and ‘dumbing’ down the masses, for political and ideological purposes.

So ... who is denying whom?

Q and A,

I most sincerely hope that I am incorrectly interpreting your position. It appears that you regard, those that question the anthropogenic theory of climate change, as lacking in integrity and intellectual honesty.

The history of science shows that ideas and concepts are been continually questioned and subject to criticism. Some scientific ideas have lasted for centuries or incorporated into other paradigms. One example; special relativity reduces to Newtonian laws, if the velocity of a body is a small fraction of the velocity of light. Other historical theories have been superseded such as” phlogiston theory” by the concept of oxidation.

I draw your attention to ABC Counterpoint of 4 Feb. Professor Aynsley Kellow discusses the role of mathematical modelling in climate change. In talks of a concept that he called “virtuous corruption” formerly called rubbery figures. That is using computer generated data to deliberately over state a case. The process is analogous to the police convinced in their belief of a man's guilt, gilding the evidence.

The site http://climatedebatedaily.com presents two columns of references. One column in support and the other critical of anthropogenic climate change.
Clearly there is no universal consensus over climate.