sarnian, I might well ask if you have stopped beating your wife yet.

I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I don't fit into any of your prejudiced little boxes.

Try reading my post again, Divergence.

I did not say that "denialist" was "code for Nazi". What I said was, blanket-labelling anyone and everyone who disagrees with the received orthodoxy regarding climate change is akin to, in other contexts, shouting "Nazi!" at one's opponent. It's a childish tactic, with the effect of immediately delegitimising one's opponent and effectively shutting down debate forthwith.

It's also dishonest: Disagreement about climate change is not denialism.

Argument from authority ("Why do you think that you know more than they do about their own field?") is also weak, and a hallmark of dogmatism. As Freeman Dyson has commented, "of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak."

I may not be a climatologist, but I can read and I can reason. I may not know a hell of a lot about cars, either, but I can reason enough to suspect when someone is trying to sell me a lemon.

Or another example: I currently work in a brand-spanking new building, purposely designed by a highly-qualified architect, to be as "green" as is currently possible. This architect is an enthusiastic and clearly highly intelligent person, who is an acknowledged expert in his field. The building was extensively modelled in the appropriate computer environments.

I, on the other hand, only know as much about architecture as I learned in my long-ago arts courses.

But, as we sit shivering in our offices in winter, after repeatedly stifling during the recent summer, as people continually bash their heads on a service window built so low to the ground that they have to bend or even kneel to speak to person at the counter, while they also have to squirm around the bracing beam that runs crosswise through the same window (quite purposefully, the architect reassured me), I sometimes wonder just what planet our expert architect is living on.

Clearly it ain't the same one the rest of us are living on.

Look,

All we gotta do is double immigration (especially more Beer, circuses & drugsy Italians),
kick the $GST$ up to 25% & pay God to dump more rain.

The Murray is F#$#$ed, so we can situate Peter Garret in the Snowies. He is so full of 'it' with his crystal ball Global Warming scenarios, he can replenish the Murray by himself everytime he goes potty.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/murray-flows-lowest-in-a-
century-20090407-9zld.html

You see Labor has it all covered. We are the luckiest nation on Earth. Aren't you glad you voted for us?

Kevin.

PS. I want no further talk about the fact that The Drought & Nthn. Floods were caused by billions of extra litres of human excrement from our beefed up immigration and visa programs. So what if quasi-stable Ricci flows of all that extra high entropy human, industrial & and agri crap attracts ocean heat INTO northern Qld and out over southern Victoria to give the bushfire/flood double-whammy. The Second Law of Thermodynamics IS a bitch.
We can always get the CSIRO to come up with another Indian Ocean Dipole theory or el Nino-II or Global warming-IV or some other BS theory to keep the public mushroomed in the dark.

Hell, by the time the public catch-on, we'll be as big & as divine as America .. and have the BOMB.

Labor will never lose another election .. period!

Clownfish,

Of course there is room for scepticism and disagreement on this issue. As I wrote, occasionally the maverick turns out to be right. Even Jim Hanson admits that there is a small chance that he is wrong. Saying that there isn't absolute proof of AGW isn't denialism, but saying that there is no significant chance that that 97% consensus of climatologists could be right, and therefore no action should be taken, is another matter, especially when you have no qualifications in this field. Surely you admit that people can be so blinded by religious dogma or other ideology that they are impervious to argument. There is no imaginable argument that could convince, say, Runner of evolution, even if he had the background to properly understand it. As an American bumper sticker puts it, "The Bible says it. I believe it. That settles it." That is denialism, not scepticism.

You accept an argument from authority every time you get into an elevator or airplane, or expect your doctor to be a properly licensed professional and not a quack (which is not to say that he still can't be incompetent, like your architect). Why is this different? You are not "reading and thinking for yourself" if you are unable to fully understand and explain the papers in a climatology journal. You are merely cherry picking which experts you choose to believe. Moreover, if a climatologist started making pronouncements in your own area of expertise, you would most likely proclaim him an idiot.

Touché ... Divergence.

Your argument seems circular to me, divergence. The 3%, according to you, who are skeptical or disagree with AGW orthodoxy should shut up and agree because 97% do. Huh? What do you think freedom of thought and skepticism are exactly.

Interestingly, your bible bumper sticker sounds surprisingly like "the debate is over" statements of alarmists.

thanks for your grandiose, reductionistic categorization, sarnian. Remember, dehumanize the opposition. Before you send me to the chambers, my birth certificate says I am only 1/16th skeptic.