Well, would you look at that?

Here's Leigh, making lofty assertions about climate science and scorning a "giant con [that] will be treated with the contempt it deserves".

Meanwhile, he's conspicuously avoided addressing some extraordinarily simple questions about AGW and its fraudsters in two other threads.

Here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9075&page=0#144617

And here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9067&page=0#144584

If I didn't know better, I'd say Leigh was speaking from strong ideology and total ignorance, and wants to avoid any scrutiny of his argument because he knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on.

The title of this opinion piece, "What we have is the failure to communicate", reminds me of a similar phrase used in an old movie - "Cool Hand Luke". When the jailer in the movie spoke these words, it was a clear indication that those who had failed to understand his communication were in for one heck of a beating and outrageously vile treatment until the message of his communication had been drummed in - that was, "Do as you're told!"

I wonder if this is what Ms Cannold is alluding to?

Can we expect more severe and punishing "communication" from herself and her AGW comrades until we resign and give up our individual and reasoned thoughts about the matter?

Is this article a call to arms of the thought police, like Sancho above, who contributes nothing to this thread relating to the article, but posts only an aggressive and overt attack against a previous poster? Is this what we are to expect?

Is Cannold's communication to be abuse and derision from the believers until we are subdued into resignation and compliance?

Does asking people to justify their statements count as "policing", Pseudolus?

AGW is backed by a huge quantity of science, but denialists seem to believe that saying "you're wrong" constitutes a thorough rebuttal and counter-argument. After that, they invoke the first law of conservative political correctness by behaving as though crude facts and explanations are beneath them.

I single Leigh out because it's entertaining and laughably easy to win arguments against him, but you're more than welcome to tackle my questions yourself. Reluctance to engage with factual information has become a hallmark of denialism, and that's why it's on par with Intelligent Design.

The reason most people believe AGW is real is because the politicians
are telling them that "the science is settled" although clearly it
is not.
The politicians are accepting the "science" because the models say so
and the politicians have had reasonable experience with the economic
models that treasury works with every day.

Until the AGW proponent scientists are prepared to look harder at the
IPCC models they will not get support.