Very revealing replies, though not in the ways intended. Bragging of exclusivity in some initiates' club membership for starters: an "in" group and an "out" group, like in some poncey, puerile school setting. "Chortle, chortle, touche, we beat those gwubby wascals of dad's army, what say ye?"

And on Victoria's bushfires: a misanthrope's sarcastic and obviously barbaric regard, if not delight, over others' recent, horrific deaths ("innovative man...no match for Mother Nature"), all supposedly due to some mystical revenge motive in the primitive myth-consciousness of some vaguely animist Gaia spirit. Incineration of people - men, women and children - used here as a vain debating tool, supposedly to trump dissenting views on ecology and population.

What other regressive fantasies and blatant superstition? Human sacrifice on pyramids, or in peat bogs? Dickie contrives some timely connection with bushfire disasters; try this from Packham instead (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25031389-7583,00.html).

Dickie's pose of "research" is a quick web trawl of some names in an effort to seem sussed on the people quoted. Superficial fluff pretending omniscience (abc.net.au, aph.gov.au, csiro.au, and - a blog!). The attempted, but failed, mockery of climate veteran David Packham is one of the limpest attacks on dissent I have ever seen. The CSIRO link on exploration is just bizarre, as if the very research for mining is some intrinsically sinister enterprise, compromising those involved as "denialist"! That seems to be how an effete bourgeoise qualifies as "leftist" nowadays.

So dickie's bogus argument means to deny even the very existence of dissenting climate scientists, and their qualifications and experience covering geophysics, paleoclimatology, astronautical engineering, climate research, and seniority and tenure in Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO (abusing the ex-CSIRO scientists gratuitously as disgruntled and "past it" - classic anti-dissident smears) .

OLO saw a precursor to this tactic (see: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8132#127929), when AGWer Q&A slapped "Lavoisier" onto the anti-AGW protest letter to Ban Ki Moon during the Bali Climate Conference (see: http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002 and http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004) a protest by 103 climate scientists from 17 countries supposedly orchestrated by Oz think tank.

All style, very little substance - "what say ye"?

"Dickie's pose of "research" is a quick web trawl of some names in an effort to seem sussed on the people quoted. Superficial fluff pretending omniscience (abc.net.au, aph.gov.au, csiro.au, and - a blog!)."

Touche mil-observer!

Now please advise me if your superficial fluff, feigning research, "was a quick web trawl of some names in an effort to seem sussed on the people quoted":

"Dr Phil Chapman, geophysicist, astronautical engineer and first Australian to become a NASA astronaut;
- David Packham, ex-CSIRO principal research scientist, senior research fellow in a Monash University climate group, and an Australian BoM officer;
- Dr Art Raiche, ex-CSIRO Chief Research Scientist;
- Guy Le Blanc-Smith, retired CSIRO Principal Research Scientist;
- William Kininmonth, head of the Australian BoM National Climate Centre 1986-1998 and Australian delegate to the World Meteorological Organization's Commission for Climatology 1982-1998;
- Bob Carter, paleoclimate scientist James Cook University and ex-chairman of the ARC's Earth Science Panel."

If not a "web trawl," provide details please.

And a bit of trivia for you mil-observer. My good neighbour is a physicist. Her brief is in the field of fuels. She unashamedly confesses to knowing little about environmental toxicology or climate change but enthusiastically seeks out current information from poor old Dickie. As an honourable and ethical scientist, she refrains from duping an unsuspecting public, by feigning expert knowledge in the field of climate science.

So why mil-observer, do you ignore my previous questions pertaining to Australia's aging dinosaurs and their pathetic, last gasp grab at fame? Where do these old gentlemen perform their "dedicated" research and which of your *individual* experts raised written, valid theories with the IPCC?

Do please adhere to OLO protocol and respond also to my previous questions:

1. "Perhaps you will be kind enough to direct me to the published research articles these gentlemen have written on climate science?

2. "Perhaps these gentlemen should declare an interest when they pose as climate experts. What say ye?

With anticipatory thanks

Mil-observer says:

"Q&A slapped "Lavoisier" onto the anti-AGW protest letter to Ban Ki Moon during the Bali Climate Conference"

What say I?

Mil-observer ...You are a liar.

They "slapped" it on themselves.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/garnaut/GarnautsubappxB.pdf

Easy to check, go to the Lavoisier Groups web site.

I already saw that Lavoisier reproduced the letter's text as an appendix in their Garnault submission. But you branded it "Lavoisier", to mislead as though it was an initiative from that Oz think tank.

So you are not only the liar, but you also make a fraudulent pose of research into the institutional background of 103 scientists from 17 countries.

A fraud defending a fraud.

Both dickie and Q&A seem hell-bent on payback over this: probably a hangover of embarrassment from the mistaken Lomborg reference and the earlier, equally mistaken and Ludlumesque calls about "The Lavoisier Identity" (see: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8132&page=0). For another backgrounder on Q&A's baggage, see: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7669&page=0#119951, where I demolished Q&A's haughty claims about "the science".

As I stated then about the protest letter to Ban Ki Moon:
"The scientists who volunteered for the petition are variously qualified in climatology, hydroclimatology, paleoclimatology, physics, geophysics, planetology, meteorology, geology, atmospheric science, oceanography, and various branches of engineering. In case readers missed it (as our media did), see: http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002 and http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004"

For the essential purposes of this argument, that's about as far as I need to investigate those scientists' CVs. That above evidence debunks conclusively the notion of pro-AGW scientific consensus or casual "probabilities", as propagated by the bankers-run IPCC. But it's funny how dickie betrays the weakness of the pro-AGW case by demanding to see "which of your *individual* experts raised written, valid theories with the IPCC?" "Theories" are all that could conceivably matter to dickie - apart from models, presumably - but NOT scientific observation.

As fungochumley and others warned, dickie expects me to go do her research for her! Well, for the benefit of others who have not read it: nearly all of the petitioners are PhDs; around one-quarter of them work in positions directly incorporating the term "climate" (meteorology and other earth sciences cover nearly all the remainder); three of the 103 were actually "IPCC expert reviewers". Nearly all tenured academics.

But then Q&A will reveal to us that the sinister-sounding Lavoisier Group reproduced that letter as an appendix in their formal submission to Garnault. They did, honest - Q&A saw them click "copy" then "paste"!

AGW fanatics are simply unable to deal with the genuine, specialized, highly qualified and professional dissent. So they turn to smear, whether blatant or insinuated. AGW is not just a circus, but a sorry, secular and misanthropic substitute for religion.

Whoa mil-observer.

I only entered this thread when YOU said that I “slapped” or “branded” that letter to Ban Ki Moon from the Lavoisier Group.

You are a liar, I did not ... THEY (the Lavoisier Group) did the ‘cut-n-paste’.

I agree with you, THEY (the Lavoisier Group) are the “frauds”.

It is a typical ‘tactic’ of the ‘deny-n-delay’ brigade worldwide – THEY will produce “the list” every time they see the wheel falling off their cart’.

Don’t get me wrong, I respect a handful of the genuine ‘contrarians’ on "the list" – others I wouldn’t touch with a barge pole.

When we do try and knock a hole in AGW theory, using the scientific process of course, our findings just bolster the theory – very frustrating I’m sure.

Ok, some nuances are revealed (and these are subject of much discussion and critique in the scientific community) but to use these as “evidence” that AGW is a fraud or hoax perpetuated on humanity is just silly, milly.

You say “AGW fanatics (sic) are simply unable to deal with the genuine, specialized, highly qualified and professional dissent. So they turn to smear, whether blatant or insinuated. AGW is not just a circus, but a sorry, secular and misanthropic substitute for religion.”

Piffle. You are projecting your own inadequacies onto others; I believe they call it's transference.

Now, it appears you have been digging and trolling for past comments from me and posting them in your (I mean Tanveer Ahmed’s) thread – I’m flattered. It’s as if I am watching my own episode of “This Is Your (OLO) Life”. Thanks for the memories.

You want to ‘play scientists’ so here is some homework ... do a trend analysis of diurnal temperatures, tell us what you think is happening to night time maximums, and why. Oh yeah, please cite your primary sources (given you know twat about stats).

Tanveer Ahmed (and others) might find this interesting:

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2009/02/global-warming-denial.html

Sort of on topic, eh?