Bronwyn.."lost in grammatical fog."

Yes - a redundant "not" between "else" and "to" tends to befuddle lucidity.

At least it suggests, despite rumours to the contrary, Accountants are human too.

Bugsy "Col, I know the difference between an economist and an accountant. One has a personality."

Actually the joke is "An Actuary is like an accountant but without the personality"

If you want other Accountant jokes, holler, I have heard them all and usually exchange them with my fellow bean counters.

"Perhaps you should say what you really mean: Accountants are more scrupulous than climate scientists that you happen to disagree with. You say accountants as a generality, I but I think that's only because you happen to be one. And you say scientists, but you only really mean climate scientists.:

I would observe, you are suggesting I said a lot of things which I did not say,

Please resist putting words into my mouth.

“you should take a look at how many accountants are in jail for fraud and compare that number to the number of scientists.”

You seem incapable of understanding, I acknowledged prior to your first post, given nefarious opportunity in combination with a professionalism adopted by those of the us who do respect honesty and ethics, the number of Accountants who end up in prison is not surprising, they deserve it.

“the whole climate thing is a gigantic conspiracy isn't it”

Well you said it.

All I have ever said is if it cannot be proven, why should anyone believe it?

The “Science Faculty" is where they teach “Absolute Facts”, not conjecture or subjective opinion, otherwise science would be taught in the “Arts Faculty”, along side accountancy and “lawyering”.

There is no conclusive proof, not even consensus among “scientists” about AGW.

When there is, we should respond to it. Until then, the entire “AGW:Carbon trading” industry is founded on the same stuff which fortune-tellers and sideshow magicians use-

the gullibility of the audience.

Except these necromancers are dragging governments into their performance and are going to use it as an excuse to impose “Socialism by Stealth”

I thought an Actuary was the one with the sense of humour, and the Auditor was the one without the personality? Never mind, accountancy humour is so interchangeable.

If you think the Science Faculty is in the business of teaching "Absolute Facts", then I can understand why you don't understand science or scientists.

You've got to admit though, it was a silly generalisation about scientists and accountants, they are both neither more more less scrupulous than each other. That is because both groups encompass broad and diverse sets of personalities and backgrounds. That accountants are governed by ethics regulations means nothing, as a libertarian you know that you cannot legislate for morality.

As you have demonstrated, it is climate scientists it seems you have issue with, as you seem to believe that science faculties deal with "absolute facts". I never seem to read you having an issue with molecular biologists, astronomers, zoologists, synthetic chemists, botantists or geologists. I can only conclude that you didn't mean "scientists" as a generality, but rather made another silly generalisation.

Bugsy “the Science Faculty is in the business of teaching "Absolute Facts",

Completing the quote …“not conjecture or subjective opinion, otherwise science would be taught in the “Arts Faculty”.”

Science “knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.”

“That accountants are governed by ethics regulations means nothing, as a libertarian you know that you cannot legislate for morality.”

The difference between a ‘libertarian’ and an ‘anarchist’ is “morality” and the support of and a belief in the rule of law.

I suggest you get an education before you engage in such ‘generalist’ observations.

“it is climate scientists it seems you have issue with,”

I have no particular issue with any scientist who can prove the hypotheses they are promoting.

I have great issue with anyone, scientist, theologian or any other so called or self-proclaimed “expert”, who believe their view is sacrosanct and unchallengeable, just as I have challenged a few of our own OLO “experts” in the past.

“I never seem to read you having an issue with molecular biologists, astronomers, zoologists, synthetic chemists, botantists or geologists.:”

Maybe if we had any articles concerning “molecular biologists, astronomers, zoologists, synthetic chemists, botantists or geologists” I would.

As it is we have had any number of threads related to the spurious “science” of ‘global warming’, where subjective, short term studies, often found to be wrong in their assumptions, disputable in their theory and lacking in sufficient data, in the nature of volumes of readings, length of chronology and location of readings, have been used to fraudulently justify the interjection in and limitation of individual human activity and choices, through increased governmental regulation and taxation. Which, as far as I am concerned is an abuse of governmental authority, bearing in mind, government is there to reflect the will of the electorate, not to determine it.

“I can only conclude that you didn't mean "scientists" as a generality, but rather made another silly generalisation.”

I leave the silly generalizations to you, you make enough to cover not only mine but several other posters allocation.

Completing the quote only reinforces the silliness Col (which is why I didn't bother).

To paraphrase yourself, if your insight to the scientific profession (and the scientifc method genrally) is any guide, your opinion of accountants and politicans is not worth a tinkers toss.

Science is full of competeing (and therefore by definition 'unproven') hypotheses, that's what makes it science. Hypotheses don't get proven, they get proven wrong an dismissed.