I don't know why you say touche, Q&A. You use the term "denialist" liberally in the context which divergence excludes.

OMG, his FOLO life has been resurrected - the messiah ... not.

Curmudgeon’s post is perplexing: “Temperatues are generally higher than they were a few decades ago …… but the relationship between temperature, cloud cover and rainfall is a major unknown. (This has not stopped some scientists from trying to claim there is a link.)” Is Curmudgeon suggesting that those in the "major unknown" camp, know more than those who do? Links please?

Perhaps he should ponder the many scientific papers on the formation of the Asian brown "cloud", which hovers over the north west of Australia and beyond on which the World Health Organisation released figures showing that the haze was causing the premature deaths of 530,000 Asians every year. Currently the pollution levels are at six times the level that WHO considers safe, however, it increases Australia's rainfall, currently masking the long-term, adverse impacts:

http://www.sciencewa.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=587&Itemid=670

http://www.abc.net.au/news/scitech/2002/09/item20020930115213_1.htm

Curmudgeon’s propensity to transport his CRU map from one thread to another, to support his claim that temperatures have declined is equally perplexing when the same institute provides information to the contrary:

“The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2008. The year 2008 was tenth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2001, 2007 and 1997. This time series is being compiled jointly by the Climatic Research Unit and the UK Met. Office Hadley Centre.

“ The period 2001-2008 (0.43°C above 1961-90 mean) is 0.19°C warmer than the 1991-2000 decade (0.24°C above 1961-90 mean).”

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/

“He referred to the CSIRO as if it was still a research organisation to be admired, & respected.”

Hasbeen that is not what he indicated at all. He described the CSIRO as “the country’s premier scientific agency.” The definition of “premier” means “principal" or "chief.” If you know of another Australian institute which has replaced the CSIRO as Australia's “premier” scientific agency, please advise.

Btw. I'm advised that about 50% of funding for the CSIRO comes from government. Who do you think are "buying" the other 50% (apart from the fossil fuel industy of course!?)

I must apologies to clownfish. In my first post I said, “In trying to understand the reasoning of climate change, peak oil and overpopulation denialists”.
I should have added to this list: The holocaust, round earths, and even perhaps gravity.

Divergence, you surely missed your calling; comedy would seem to be your forte.

Your entire answer could be summed up as: "Yes, there is room for scepticism and disagreement. Now shut up and do as you're told."

I'm curious, do you fully understand published papers on, say, nuclear physics or engineering? Yet you no doubt have an opinion on nuclear energy or the risks of air travel?

Yes, people can be impervious to argument. That much is obvious everyday, here. However, it may interest you to know that I am quite capable of changing my mind: Up until about a year ago, I was a firm believer in AGW.

Oh, and I wasn't saying the architect is incompetent, at all; He is obviously quite gifted, and knows a lot more about architecture and engineering than I'll ever know. The problem is that the real world has a messy way of disagreeing the nice, neat models engineered on his computers.

"I'm curious, do you fully understand published papers on, say, nuclear physics or engineering? Yet you no doubt have an opinion on nuclear energy or the risks of air travel?"

I have a practical understanding of thermal expansion and latent heat. Would anyone care to explain why the oceans are continuing to rise if the world has been cooling since 1998?