One of our contributors to OLO recently posted on the theme that “lefties were cultists”. It is worse than that. Cults are an endemic part of our modern social fabric and it is not confined to lefties, although the strong correlation between the two certainly supports this hypothesis.

Of all the attributes identified by the research into Cultism, there are 34 that correlate directly with the AGW Phenomena, just Google “Cult Characteristics”.

Cults are now well documented and understood through modern experience, it is not something you can easily escape, even if it is screamingly obvious to any rational person that you need to. Cults blind people and the deeper in you are, the more blinded you will be. The cultist irrationally fights anything and everything that is a threat to their cult, they are the true Daleks of our planet, exterminate, exterminate! (Credits to anonymous on OLO)
There are many web sites dedicated to helping those involved with cults, one is interestingly called “The skeptic Tank”. They have this to say;

“A great many people are dragged into their religion by their parents and they are brought up believing in a great many absurdities they later find impossible to accept. By the time they're able to start thinking about discarding what they know full well to be a lie; they have expended a great deal of emotional and financial investments and are unwilling to admit to themselves that they have made a costly mistake. Such is human nature.”

They offer a package called “Walk Away”. This, it seems is the only escape from cults and it primarily requires courage. It seems that unless society is able to provide a “Walk Away Package” for warmers there is little hope for them. Especially if, as indicated by the research, people vulnerable to cults are typically those confused, fearful, guilt ridden or suffer self doubt, there seems little opportunity for them to find the “courage to walk away”

Quite frankly I find the idea that if you accept the conclusions of research that climate scientists are telling us, that somehow you are a cult member that needs a 'walk away package', ####ing inulting.
It also comes across as a completely hyperbolic partisan piece of BS, in that it equates people prepared to accept the science that is being communicated to us to 'lefties' and that these 'lefties' correlate well with cult memebership. I know a lot of scientists who are not 'lefties' (perhaps some of them are lefthanded) and who by no means could fit a cult member description who are also prepared to accept the findings of the physicists and climate specialists.

This appears to indicate to me that perhaps it is you that should have a good hard look at yourself and the cults of personality that are forming around the 'deniers' 'credible scientists' and blog masters.

Right on que :)

Spindoc, you must have a death wish to post this, watch as the cultists tear you apart lol!

Spindoc, as much as I am a skeptic about global warming theories, I would stop short of calling the followers of these theories as members of a cult as such.

I looked up the word cult on wikipedia :
" The word cult pejoratively refers to a group whose beliefs or practices are considered strange...It is also a result of the anti-cult movement which uses the word in reference to groups seen as authoritarian, exploitative and that are believed to use dangerous rituals or mind control. The word implies a group which is a minority in a given society."

I doubt that climate change believers are a 'minority', do you spindoc?
Many eminent scientists who have done amazing, life-changing research on a range of matters, also believe in the science of climate change.

We cannot deny that the climate of our world IS constantly changing.
What I find hard to believe is that us little humans can have a hand in changing the climate of the world ourselves.

Are the members of the anti-climate-change brigade members of a cult in your eyes as well spindoc?
If not, why not?

I think spindoc should refer to the definition of Denialism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

Clear to me spindoc, quite a lot you are not getting.
I could go on all day but it is not worth it.
Your post appears to come from the shallow end of the gene pool.
Climate change is proved by recent events,even the most hard headed appear to know, while denying man brings it about that it is taking place.
FLOODS and DROUGHTS are predicted in the science.
Lets see what else some on both sides but more on the very right fail to get.
History tells those who will listen, all views can be right or wrong.
That change progress and stability come from all sides at different times.
I think comments like those here, Raw Mustards any where, are all the evidence I need to remind me some views are not based on intelligence.

Belly, you are too harsh sometimes.

Rawmusturd is the thinking man's bogan.

Hell, he's found his way around a keyboard and knows all about 'The Internets', and can probably even use 'The Googles', just like George Bush.

Now, that's quite an achievement for an Ugg booted, gun toting, mullet haired true-blue.

As for trying to portray 'lefties', whatever that is supposed to mean, as 'cultists', well, that is another matter.

It is hardly sustainable is it?

Any more than saying 'rightists' are cult followers.

Being 'of the left' is merely a handy geographical location used when trying to discern the gap in 'the mob'.

In Australian politics today, it is very hard to see any hint of 'left' left in any parliament.

In fact, in party political terms, the term is so degraded that it is totally meaningless.

Flooding in Queensland

NSW, Victoria, Tasmania

It is all normal?

(and you reckon we're behaving like cultists!)

No Bugsy, I’m not suggesting belief in AGW makes you a cult member, nor am I suggesting AGW is a cult. What I am pointing to is well researched and documented correlation of behavior patterns between AGW believers and cults.

The research has this to say “Because all cults have different beliefs, cult experts have identified common characteristics of cults, which they use to identify new cults. Thus, an organization can be identified as a cult no matter what their beliefs are.”
So it is not as you say that accepting AGW makes you a cultist, but it is a question whether or not you “exhibit characteristics” in common with cults.

Suzeonline, please see response to Bugsy above. Also for ref. see posts under “Lights Off Part III” by Kellie Tranter.
Bugsy, re the “Denialist” link you provided. All you have to do now is find the two missing elements. Firstly the “empirically verifiable reality” and secondly the “radical and controversial ideas” being adopted rather than the “scientific consensus”. When you can produce these you will correctly be able to apply the term “denier”.
Your link, not mine!

And just for the record Bugsy:

“Skepticism was created by the advocacy block; it continues to drive public and professional division and anger by supporting the very things that created skepticism in the first place.

1. The absolute authority of the UN over the “orthodoxy”
2. The mandatory single “orthodoxy”
3. The mandatory application of “selective” science that supports only that orthodoxy.”

Continued:

Continued:

Just to kick things off, how about a few “cult characteristics” on this thread already?

3. The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.
Certainly has.

6. The leadership induces guilt feelings in members in order to control them.
Certainly, we are all made to feel guilt for destroying the planet and destroying the legacy of our grandchildren.

9. All The Answers - Provide simple answers to the confusion they, themselves, create. Support these answers with material produced or "approved" by the group.
Certainly, it’s all so simple, cut carbon emissions and switch to renewables and just look at “our” supporting opinions.

15. Totalism - "Us against them" thinking, Strengthens group identity. Everyone outside of group lumped under one label.
Certainly, they are all “Deniers”.

16. Motive Questioning- When sound evidence against the group is presented, members are taught to question the motivation of the presenter.
Certainly, shoot the messenger and accuse them of being in the pay of “Big Oil”.

20. It creates a false sense of righteousness by pointing to the shortcomings of the outside world and other cults.
Certainly, you “Flat Earthers” and “Deniers” have no intelligence and are mentally ill)

(Belly, Bugsy, wobbles and Oh dear, The Blue Cross, please note, Ooops!)

And for our “respectable scientists” at the CRU how about these?
25. Use of deception

a. Deliberately holding back information
b. Distorting information to make it acceptable
c. Outright lying.

(Please note Professor Phil Jones)

27. Compartmentalization of information; Outsider vs. Insider doctrines

a. Information is not freely accessible
b. Information varies at different levels and missions within pyramid
c. Leadership decides who "needs to know" what.

(Please note Professor Phil Jones. The FOIA is something you can freely abuse and get away with, seemingly.)

Shintaro, you must be a bit of a kid, lucky you. If you were getting on a bit, like me, you would have seen it all before, more than a few times.

Like me, you may be unlucky enough to have lived through some floods yourself.

If you had been round long enough you would have heard the belief that "the longer the drought, the higher the flood that ends it". This was an accepted "fact" when I was a boy.

You may also remember a cartoon featured in some newspapers way back, "Bluey & Curly". They were a couple of WW11 returned diggers, & bushmen living somewhere/everywhere out back in Oz.

Two of the best were one with our boys riding a raft like roadside sign down a flooded river. They pass a house with people on the roof, than a high shot shows them surrounded by miles of water. Then a close up from above allows you to read the sign. It says,
......................"BUSH FIRE DANGER
............................... HIGH".

The other one has our heroes fighting a bushfire, trying to beat out the flames. Bluey has a "sugar bag", hopefully wet, & Curly has some sort of sign. About a 3' by 2' sign on 4' of 3X2. in the forth frame we can read the sign. It says, "BEWARE FLOOD HEIGHT 6 Ft".

I saw those over 55 years ago, so I don't think all this is really new, although some con men may try to say it is.

Ahhh yes here you go again,
I take it that the IPCC has run its computer model against the new
real fossil fuel data and that they have produced new projections.
Have they ?

No ? Then what the hell are you arguing about ?

What a b!@@#$ waste of effort !

"""
FLOODS and DROUGHTS are predicted in the science.
"""

DAY and NIGHT are predicted in the science.

In the future it will be dark forever and we're all gunna die. I think we should tax the dark to stop it happening!

You sound just like that gangrene leader, Brown. It's all the miners fault.

I think comments like those here, Belly's any where, are all the evidence I need to remind me some views are not based on intelligence.

And TBC, really, showing off your finger painting skills again. I guess they didn't provide you with the nouse to skip spindoc's hook so convincingly? And lay off my ugg boots, They're security for that predicted ice age you loonies said we'd all be dead from already.

I very hesitantly enter the fray, putting forward my scientific credentials. None.

Is it not possible that changes in the climate, as we are experiencing, would be normal to earth's evolution, given the massive changes that have occurred in the past.

The earth has never remained static. Change is normal. If it did not experience cycles, it would then be of serious concern.

In the 16th/17th century, England had such heat as to enable grape growing.

It might be that humanity has contributed something. But as to the degree, aren't we somewhat arrogant in taking full responsibility ...

Oh dear spindoc, I think you ought to invest in a mirror mate. Or at least take that neck brace off and have a good look around at the company you are keeping in that 'skeptic' (for want of a better word to describe the group you place yourself in) camp of yours.

On thread alone Raw Mustard ridicules anything that isn't 'skeptic', another well known poster, who posts under multiple psedonyms is a member of the Bretheren, and yet another (dan S de merengue) is a dyed in the wool creationist. None of these could be described as 'leftie' and yet display quite strong cultish characteristics. This so-called 'correlation' of yours with 'lefties' and 'cults' doesn't stack up. It is a bald assertion with no data.

Nearly every one of your listed 'charcteristics' could more easily be ascribe to your so-called 'skeptic' movement even more so. In fact most of the literature they produce is through blogs, press releases and books.

Lefties, cultists, loonies? It seems that new ideas, instead of being welcomed for the opportunities they open up for the improvement of the human lot, are looked upon as threats to those who've become comfortable in their ideologies (religious or otherwise). Little has changed over the centuries when ignorance and vested interests are confronted by scientific facts.

What is it we are not getting? The answer may well be the fact that some fo us don't recognise the fact that the planet has a finite amount of resources and that it can tolerate only a limited amount of pollution. If world population continues to grow rapidly, if industrialisation spreads around the world, and if pollution and resource depletion continues at an increasing rate - the question that we should be asking is - where is human society headed?

Well as one who is also sceptical about the extent of AGW, calling someone a cultist just for holding a different opinion is hardly working towards the path of "getting it".

'Lefties' and AGW believers are not cultists and it is extraordinary that you would compare them thus. These sorts of disingenuous comparisons belittle the real tragedy in cult religions and the disenfranchisement of those who get sucked in usually because of some deeper vulnerability.

One could easily and with little effort use the same logic to cast aspersions to those on the far right, those who cling to the solid faith of free trade and globalisation, those who think the private sector and corporatism holds all the answers.

Sometimes people just have different opinions about what systems work best for socieites and about human nature.

What it is we are not getting is honest debate that does not include broad generalisations and trite comparisons to cultism

Well...what an interesting thread:) You know, it would be nice to have the ultimate answer to one of the worlds biggest Questions, which will effect all of living life on earth, but hey........she'll be right mate! Human-kind cant be wiping things out.....tell you what, lets pretend nothing happening, that way.......I can clam ignorants.

There's only two possibilities!

1...Every thing is fine

2...This is just the beginning

If this planet throws a curve ball, no amount of money will fix it.
We could perhaps, just keep on going.....which humans will do anyway, and that will be dew to the uncertainty from both sides of the camp, which probably wont matter since the planet keeps its own time table. So, if change is on its way, regardless whether or not man is responsible for it, the ball is overly rolling on a planetary scale which man will be powerless to stop, which = billions of deaths world wide.

See, the thing is, mankind is at its most vulnerable position ever, compared to all the other civilizations put together. If mankind gets this wrong, there wont be a second chance, and the dark-ages will be a reality that generations from now, will talk about for centuries.

Now if GW can be slowed or stopped, mankind will still keep going regardless of all the evidents that's so abundant, a blind man could see it.

So, we have a planet that's long over-due for a change ( and change usually takes 10's of 1000's of years ), except when a bunch of Humans starts making it worst:) and speeding up the processes by forcing the two together.

Continued

Which leaves just one more thing to consider. When Co2 exceeds the o2 amount, the world is thrown back to 300 millions years to the time of the first scorpions and land plant life. Now it did take all that time to lock down the Co2 in the first place, and it seems in just 100 years or so, mankind has put a fair amount back in to the system that the planet had worked so hard for you, and you and you to be here:)

We may have to consider, times up.

http://tinyurl.com/4fen82u

http://tinyurl.com/46adprb

http://tinyurl.com/4a9wscy

http://tinyurl.com/4h7b4yk



BLUE

What a Delmer.

Now for all those that can not see....."who is paying you to help kill this planet? Yes people, The Conservationist/scientists are at the top of what is called intelligents.

The rest just seem like a bunch of ignorant fools, with either nothing to loose, or payed to lie!

Capitalist's are your friends.....yeah right! And I cant wait for 10 billion more people on this planet, wont that be fun? Its only 40 or so years away.

Think who's got the most to loose when green and sustainable management care is questioned, and who's getting fat and rich at the exspence of the planet.

The people in power now are killing all your life-supports, so you might say, why!...WELL, if your old, who cares right.

Its your planet.

You know, its sad when they cant clean up there own mess, isn't.

BLUE

Every one has an opinion, as it should be.
Some are over confident about their own.
And too easily discount others.
CULT?
A fact we are having global warming, why? I do not think we know yet.
But think man is having an impact.
Now any one want an idea for a book?
Just here in OLO one exists, waiting for you to get it out from under its blanket.
review all our opinions,you will find mine changed and got it very wrong or very right.
If you are young enough,your second book will be a best seller, it can be so as humorous or factual.
In 30 years no doubts about global warming will exist you, not me,will know.
The claims,just here of those on both sides,in my view the no sayers,will make for a good read.

I really can’t make it any simpler. We have almost every AGW Advocate on this thread telling skeptics they lack intelligence, skeptics are abused as “Deniers”, and patronizingly provided with a definition of what a denier really is.

So if skeptics are so unintelligent, why cannot the AGW advocates help us?

If you wish to call someone a “Denier” that’s fine, now all you have to do is meet the criteria for that definition, kindly provided by Bugsy, to be valid;

Firstly, where is the “empirically verifiable reality” and secondly what are “radical and controversial ideas” being adopted rather than the “scientific consensus” of AGW?

Two very simple points; “empirically verifiable reality” and the “radical and controversial ideas”?

Then we have a very short list of just three issues that form the basis of AGW Advocacy and that make “skeptics” skeptical.

1. The absolute authority of the UN over the “orthodoxy”
2. The mandatory single “orthodoxy”
3. The mandatory application of “selective” science that supports only that orthodoxy.”

You have the opportunity to conclusively support your “Denier” accusations and you have a stunning opportunity to explain or justify the core of your “beliefs” and the causes of skepticism in one hit.

If you cannot justify your use of the term “Denier”, you will never again be able to use it legitimately because you cannot even correctly define it.

If you cannot justify the very core of AGW Advocacy, many skeptical posters will rightfully feel absolutely vindicated.

Finally, there is the issue of constantly being accused of being “unintelligent”? If you cannot use your own massive intellects to address these very simple issues, we must draw our own conclusions as to where the intellectual deficit is.

AGW Advocates on this thread have simply ignored the issues to be faced; all we get back is diversionary “righteous indignation” with a few more self incriminating “cult” responses.

If you can’t get there, then walk away from the thread. But be very careful in future if you ever think about leveling the terms “Denier”, “Skeptic” or “Lack of Intelligence”.

My appologies to Bugsy, the "deniers" link was provided by wobbles.

Indeed spindoc, apology accepted (although you made the mistake twice, the first was ignored as it should be) but I don't know where you get off by also implying that I have accused you as being 'unintelligent'. It does not require one to be stupid to be a 'skeptic'.

It just requires a complete rejection of the findings of the scientific establishment and all that it has achieved. I'm sorry, I just don't think that is a justified position to take, at least not for me at this time.

For goodness sake, there is no point in having this argument until the
IPCC runs its computer model against the realistic quantities of fossil
fuels available.

Even if the AGW theory is correct, it may not matter anyway as the fuel
to generate a problem level of CO2 may not be available.
Just wait until they run the new figures.

Yeh Bugsy, too much cutting and pasting I guess, sorry again.

I didn't actually say you accused skeptics of being unintelligent, what I did say was "almost every AGW Advocate on this thread telling skeptics they lack intelligence". No I'm not going to name anyone, we can all read the posts.

I didn't see anything in your post that addressed the questions I tabled? Are you going to have a stab at these?

Bugsy:

Well said. Professor Tor Hundloe tells us in his book,"From Buddha to Bono," In Australia in 2006, leading climatologists with the country's pre-eminent public research organisation, CSIRO, were forbidden by the organisation's management from publicly discussing the implications of climate change. Management was acting on behalf of the government. And Australia is one of the standout countries in terms of human development status. It is not corrupt. Its science is world class. None of this matters. In 2006, the Australian Government's position was to cast doubt on global warming and refuse to enter into UN agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol. With the release of the Stern Report on climate change, the Australian Government's position had changed - yet the Prime Minister remained half-hearted about a commitment to counter global warming." As I wrote in my earlier post, little had changed in near to 400 years when ignorance and vested interests are confronted by scientific facts. As Hundloe states, "While Galileo's and other wonderful discoveries were being made, not much had been learnt by the political elite in 2000 years since Socrates' murder by the state."
There is one position however even more culpable than denial. That is to accept that it's happening and that its results will be catastropic; but to fail to take the measures needed to prevent it.

Bugsy, Blue if we did not question orthodoxy, among other things, we would still be worshiping Egyptian, Greek, & Roman goods.

We would still be running around naked, throwing rocks at things, trying to get something to eat.

Our doctors would still be running around with a scalpel, & beaker, bleeding people, to try to cure cancer.

We would believe the world was about to go up in flames, because your "betters" told you CO2 was bad.

Thank heavens we are not all that dumb.

Lexi, a very nice diversionary post with subtle navigation away from the issues. Your post however, seems to crumble at the end with, << There is one position however even more culpable than denial.>>

We’ve done this “denial” bit pretty well on this thread but just in case you missed it, the term denial is valid only if you can point to the “empirically verifiable reality” being denied and the “radical and controversial ideas” being alternatively adopted.

Without these the term is just a form of abuse, it has no relevance.

So not only do you have “denial”, it is now “culpable denial”. If you want to use another expression of abuse that is actually more valid, can I suggest a contribution from one of my grandkids, it’s so much more meaningful. “Potty potty poo poo”

Your sentence now makes much more sense and reads “There is one position however even more culpable than “Potty potty poo poo”.

There, so much better don’t you think?

Hasbeen.

If mankind gets this wrong, there wont be a second chance.

What gives man the right to gamble with planet?

BLUE

Questions are generally denoted by question marks spindoc, and the only ones I see that have them in the proper place appear to be about the validity of using the term "Denier". It's just a label that quickly denotes the position that self-called skeptics might take, if you don't like it, fine. Then it is, as you point out, just about name calling, which is why I put my use of the term in quotation marks.

I won't call you a Denier. There, fixed.

Now are there any other questions that you may be referring to? Surely not the eight out of obviously more than 27 randomly selected samples of cult characteristics, with running opinionated commentary?

What do you want me to say about them? A rubber-glue metaphor perhaps?

And as for having a good hard look at the company you keep, I think that Hasbeen there labels anyone not sharing his opinion 'dumb', does this this not come under one of your 'cult characteristics'?

Anyway, I think that Hasbeen has confused 'questioning orthodoxy' with the complete rejection of it. Scientists are the ones that most often question orthodoxy, it's just that they also tend to take notice of the answers that they find and then incorporate them into the the 'new orthodoxy'.

And for the record Hasbeen, I never thought that the Romans, Greeks and Egyptians were dumb for believing what they did. Most historians would not think so either. However, the worship of goods is a much lamented product of the consumer society and a modern scourge or so many Christians also tell us.

Bugsy:)

Its like watching a flea, climbing up an elephant leg with rape on its mind:)

Oh dear:)

BLUE

Bugsy, many thanks for covering part of just one of the questions posed, I will take your advice in future note that the use of the word denier in quotation marks makes it OK.

I still prefer “Potty potty poo poo” though.

I also note that you avoided any response to finding “empirically verifiable reality” being denied and the “radical and controversial ideas” being alternatively adopted. So we wait with baited breath on that one. Unless you wish to avoid denier altogether and adopt “Potty potty poo poo”

You ask if there are any other questions I might be referring to. Well yes actually, I’ll copy them here for your convenience.

Can you please contradict the three issues that form the basis of AGW Advocacy and which cause “skeptics” skeptical?

1. The absolute authority of the UN over the “orthodoxy”
2. The mandatory single “orthodoxy”
3. The mandatory application of “selective” science that supports only that orthodoxy.”

Deep-Blue, you are everywhere I look. Can you please stop quoting from my “Cultist Handbook?” Get something original of your own.

30. Adopt "loaded" language (characterized by "thought-terminating clichés"). Words are the tools we use to think with. These "special" words constrict rather than expand understanding. They function to reduce complexities of experience into trite, platitudinous "buzz words".

(Yes, “the science is settled”, “most scientists agree”, “scientific consensus” “the earth is warming”, “we face catastrophic blah, blah, blah.” “wont be a second chance”, “gambling with planet” These are part of the “Languaging and Emotioning” at the heart of organic networking.)

8. Crisis Creation - They employ tactics designed to create or deepen confusion, fear, guilt or doubt

This Public Alarm Phenomena seeks to terrorize us and our children with threats of runaway global temperatures, dead Polar Bears, melting ice caps and glaciers, rising sea levels, droughts, climate refugees, floods, violent weather, eco-terrorism, loss of food production, biological devastation and the destruction of life as we know it. (Unless of course, you keep paying us and your “robber barons”, your carbon tax obligations).

When is the penny going to drop Blue?

You can use "Potty potty poo poo" if you like, it is of no concern to me spindoc.

I didn't respond to the second bit because I didn't realise that it was directed at me, as it comes from a link that I did not post. It also requires that the term 'Denier' be accurate, and as I have just previously stated I was merely using it as a shorthand label. I might just as well have said 'skeptics' or 'contrarian zombies'.

Ok your three points then:
1. No there isn't, scientific consensus was achieved without the UN's overarching direction to follow a particular line.
2. There is no single orthodoxy, let alone have it be 'mandatory'. There is however a major coherent theory that appears to explain the great majority of the data, which is more than can be said for the alternatives.
3. There is no mandatory application of 'selective' science that supports only the orthodoxy, this is a story that is promulgated to the angry 'contrarian zombies' to explain why it is that they aren't being listened to. There are alternative competing hypotheses as to why they aren't.

Your last points:
30. You mean like 'hide the decline' and 'no significant warming' etc.?
8. This could be combined with 30. and we get "New Big Tax" or 'crippling our economy' etc.

I might publish on this rubber-glue conjecture. Maybe in the next Kindy newsletter, next to the Potty Potty Poo Poo bloggers column.

When is the penny going to drop Blue? lolol. Hang on, Iam just dialing my Cristal ball....wait:) So you can guarantee all will be fine:0 whats the number of your Cristal ball?

BLUE

Bugsy, you are undoubtedly courageous. Only TBC is there to support you, your tenacity is clearly lacking in the rest of the AGW Advocacy. Have they taken the “Walk Away Package”?

This should so easy for you, after all as Belly points out, we are “from the shallow end of the gene pool”, our observations “are not based on intelligence”. If you can’t handle the easy stuff from simpletons, where does this leave you?

I very much appreciate your offer of “A rubber-glue metaphor” however; I would hang on to all the stock you can lay your hands on, your need is greater.

Your responses to the three tenets for the basis of AGW Advocacy are.

You suggest that “scientific consensus was achieved without the UN's overarching direction to follow a particular line.” Good effort. Now tell us about “Scientific Consensus” as a verifiable concept.

Then perhaps you can direct us to any other agency or agencies on the planet upon which AGW policy is determined. I could be wrong but Rio, Copenhagen and Cancun were driven by, er! No, don’t tell me, it was, I know, it was yes, The Country Women’s League?

That “There is no single orthodoxy, let alone have it be 'mandatory'.” Really? So might we ask what the “other” official orthodoxies are?

“There is no mandatory application of 'selective' science that supports only the orthodoxy, this is a story that is promulgated to the angry 'contrarian zombies' to explain why it is that they aren't being listened to” Ooops.

OK, so why aren’t these non existent “other” perspectives being listened to? Even if they are just “contrarian zombies”? You dug the hole Bugsy, not me!

“Contrarian Zombies” Ah! In my great naivety I really thought you were making some progress, now I have to point to Cult tactics 1,2,3,4,13,14,15,19 and 20, almost a clean sweep on that one.

We “Deniers” are also waiting for you to find the “empirically verifiable reality” being denied and the “radical and controversial ideas” being alternatively adopted.”

Not looking crash hot for you at the moment.

YAWN!

BLUE

Spinner said

"This should so easy for you, after all as Belly points out, we are “from the shallow end of the gene pool”

Arrrrrr:) Thats the problem:)

I'll try to make easier for you in the future:)

BLUE

Spin doc IF you are at that end of the pool you have company.
I consider this subject one that will always bring heat but am on the opposite side of it than you.
Not moving and prepared to be judged on my views but not to wade too close your fan.

Hey, 'denier' 'skeptic' 'contrarian zombie', whatever, the point was that they are just labels and not necessarily accurate. As I am sure you would not describe yourself as a contrarian zombie either. I am sorry that you are so precious about names.

Anyone who accepts the prevailing scientific opinion on climate change gets called an 'alarmist' all the time. I am not particularly alarmed, so I prefer to call myself a 'concernist'. But it does not matter, it's just a name, not necessarily accurate, but then there's heaps of people who don't like their nicknames.

The "other perspectives" are of course yours, and many of the 'skeptics', however politically they are being listened to but often pretend that they are not and tell their fellow members that they aren't as well. However in scientific circles they actually aren't being listened to because the evidence does not support their position but they don't accept that

Looks like Deep-Blue and Belly have taken the “Walk Away Package”. Sorry about that Bugsy.

Deep-Blue and Belly will have to walk away from this thread knowing that not only did they fail to have any answers but they didn’t even try. The YAWN from DB pretty well summed them both up, a final superior sneer at that which is beneath them and cannot handle.

I did mean what I said about you being courageous. I think you have stood by your beliefs and I truly admire that.

I didn’t really expect you to have any answers and I can see you have carefully avoided them in your last post. We will likely never agree and that’s fine. I’ve enjoyed the challenge. If you have more to say I promise to remove my previous confrontation and accord you the respect you have earned. So if you do have any answers I promise to discuss them with you more politely.

Thank you.

Answers to what exactly? Anyone can accuse someone else of not having answers, when they themselves have badly worded the question.

Bluntly put, my position that an acceptance of AGW theory does not comprise any sort of 'cult' activity, and believe the suggestion that it does to be bloody insulting. I see you haven't backed away from that, therefore we have nothing more to discuss.

If that in your mind constitutes some sort of a 'walk away package', then so be it, you win. Now you can feel all warm and fuzzy and I can spend my mental energies elsewhere, so in effect we all win.

Spindoc:

I'm quite surprised at your response to my last post where you quote your grandson's words, "Potty, potty, poo, poo," considering that its not the topic of your thread, or were you making the point that we're the most effluent nation on earth? However, I'm actually quite concerned about your grandson's education - he will end up with a very limited vocabulary if all he's being taught is "baby-talk." Try using words with a few more syllables - the child may actually surprise you in his capacity to learn new things. The current environmental problems, basics like chemical cycles, food webs, mid-level concepts such as ecosystems, tricky topics like population growth and their impact on the planet are hard to understand - what is being engaged in with sustainability science is a rational search for the means of achieving a good, sustainable life. This is what science is - a rational process of inquiry. Whether we choose to destroy our planet or save it is a collective decision and its one that may well be made within our lifetimes. We can only hope and trust that our ultimate choice will be to enhance the life on this bright and lovely planet on which billions of us share our adventure.

Deary me today

All this name-calling just helps

The obfuscators

Spindoc,
Why is it OK to for you call someone a "cultist" and then take offence at being labelled a "denialist".

The process of scientific obsucation we are experiencing is the same orchestrated tactic employed by those who -

Campaigned against the effects of passive smoking
Campaigned against the effects of acid rain
Tried to get the ban on DDT lifted and
Fought against the supposed hole in the ozone layer.

The same group was behind all of these campaigns and each time it was on behalf of particular industries and each time the aim was to stop governmental industrial regulation and keep the "free market" in control.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2011/3101369.htm

spin doc I did not walk away, I ran, from the poster you team me with.
Can I say that? find nothing worth talking to him, but much to ignore
Now have you seen a creek once clean and running , dirty forever and never to be clean again?
In the last century of that creeks life men have grown how many times in numbers.
We dump our rubbish in the creek, then say it was not us?
Consider the changes to our planet that we know we bought about,put me in the cult.

lol. mmmmmmm syber bulling, yes what defined intelligence that must be. So whats all this talk that you pride yourselves with, one cant play with out your consent. lol GFY! bellies. If I thought you weren't my friend, I just don't think I could bare it. Rollie eyes. Your quite right to exercise your op.s, however I don't see why my writing stile defines what constitutes intelligence, but then again, it does show up the upper levels for what they really are.

BLU

Bugsy, you ask again, << Answers to what exactly?>> Perhaps I am guilty of badly wording the questions so I’ll try to correct that.

I identified the three core elements of the AGW Advocacy, the very basis for its existence. I also suggested that it is these same three elements that have created skepticism.

1. The absolute authority of the UN over the “orthodoxy”
2. The mandatory single “orthodoxy”
3. The mandatory application of “selective” science that supports only that orthodoxy.”

Your responses and my outstanding questions are;

1.No there isn't, scientific consensus was achieved without the UN's overarching direction to follow a particular line.

Question. The question was nothing to do with “Scientific Consensus”, it was what other agency or agencies anywhere in the world have governance over AGW Policy determination?

2. There is no single orthodoxy, let alone have it be 'mandatory'. There is however a major coherent theory that appears to explain the great majority of the data, which is more than can be said for the alternatives.

Question. If there is no mandatory single orthodoxy, what other official orthodoxies are there?
(Please don’t re-badge “single orthodoxy” as << major coherent theory that appears to explain the great majority of the data>> otherwise you are in agreement.)

3. There is no mandatory application of 'selective' science that supports only the orthodoxy, this is a story that is promulgated to the angry 'contrarian zombies' to explain why it is that they aren't being listened to. There are alternative competing hypotheses as to why they aren't.

Question. If this is true, can you point to any other “official” scientific theories being considered?

Your response was that this is just a story as to why “they”, other scientists, are not being considered. Then you say that they aren’t being listened to because of “alternative competing hypotheses”. What “hypotheses” explains why they are not being listened to? Are you agreeing with point 3. then excusing it?

If the basis for AGW Advocacy cannot be explained, then the basis for skepticism is entirely valid.
Can any Advocates explain?

Spindoc backpedals

On his original false claim

As indeed he should

Deep Blue break my rule this once.
To rebut your charge of ciber bulling.
My opinions of you, come from you.
In your posts you get aggressive toward some and lash out.
You once did so in what I thought was an unthinking way, it hurt another Innocent poster.
We all do such things , and all need to remind our selves of this.
You seem unfocused in your night time posts, say things I do not think you would at other times.
I do not, others surely too? understand your cryptic posts.
I do however understand OLO should not be a boxing tent, it is best to avoid you as we do not get along.
Posting style?
Are you aware yours has changed? one liners addressed to no one in particular.
You, not me, are in control of your public persona here, only you can change it.
No bullying bloke just self defense, we need not talk again, but if I see respect for others maybe we can.

The AGW Advocacy block seems to have hit the wall on this thread. In spite of the fact that so many have had so much to say on AGW, when it comes to exploring the basis for their Advocacy, no advocate on OLO has been able to explain this. It clearly boils down to a matter of faith.

Credit must go to Bugsy for a sterling effort, but it has to be said that when push came to shove there was no support for Bugsy, shame on you Advocates.

For a topic that is so divisive, contentious, loaded with information and carries so much passion, there was an expectation that the basis for it would be revealed. This passion has translated into abuse from both sides; it has become a blame game. Advocates blame skeptics for preventing action on AGW; skeptics blame AGW Advocates for the social and economic damage being inflicted now, in order to protect the future.

It is also clear that the “Languaging and Emotioning” used by AGW Advocates to defend their position is identical to that adopted in the defense of cults.

Cults use these techniques to defend their dogma and use every deception in the book to prevent scrutiny by the outside world. Similarly, the examples discussed here are used to protect the orthodoxy and exclude scrutiny. When attempts are made to scrutinize, as we have seen on OLO, the first reactions are to embrace many of the same techniques.

As we have also seen, the use of a term such as “Denier” is now verifiably just another form of abuse. The inability to provide either the “Empirically verifiable reality” being denied or the “radical and controversial ideas” being alternatively adopted, has left advocates with not only an empty label but also highlights a big hole in their Advocacy, the missing “Empirically verifiable reality”, because that cannot be substituted with “faith”.

Skepticism has been created by the Advocacy’s adoption and defense of the UN’s “reverse engineered” orthodoxy. It started with AGW and worked backwards from there. This perception remains unchallenged on OLO.

Continued;

Continued;

How can we explain why so many advocates bought into this? It seems that the answer to this is that this has been a developing phenomenon. It has been “oversold” to the advocacy block and gained much support whilst relatively unchallenged. Skeptical science was asleep at the wheel and Advocacy has been allowed to evolve and mutate.

Now is has taken on a life of its own to the extent that it is not actually controlled by other than commercial opportunism. The rest of the advocacy block and politicians are now captive to it. “It” drives “them”.

This has left Advocates with a massive problem and an unsustainable case. The evolution of these phenomena has no strategic elements; it can’t have because it evolved. This means that its only defense is tactical. So Advocates expend vast amounts of time and energy “reacting” to perceived threats. Proselytizing, collecting and disseminating even more “information”, more exaggerations to get attention and greater efforts to protect the single orthodoxy.

Interestingly, there is only one part of the Advocacy Block that can be influenced and that is the electorate. The rest of the Advocacy Block is utterly impervious to reality. This is giving the rest of the advocacy block the “night terrors”, which explains the hyper activity of the rest of the block, they know where the cracks will appear and must continue to reinforce public support.

Without public support, the political sponsorship will be withdrawn, the advocacy will collapse and the Reformation will begin.

The smart money is on politicians seeking a slow, non-threatening decline, a graceful exit. There are still however, some factors that could potentially cause the whole thing to implode. If that happens before the advocacy block and politicians have “their” exit strategies in place, there will be an “Inquisition” of post Albigensian Crusade proportions.

In such circumstances, for some of the perpetrators in public office, the MSM, academia, advocacy science, NGO’s and a raft of others in the advocacy block, “burning at the stake” might seem a better option than public humiliation

No bullying bloke just self defense, we need not talk again, but if I see respect for others maybe we can.....its goes both ways belly and I know you know what Iam talking about.

Faith! LOL......Well like I said on a past thread......until both sides or all for one can sum up, there's little point in bring this to a discussional level.

However, its always easier to pretend that denial is not denial:)

Many of us realists don't deny that it has warmed, hell, it's been doing that for 20,000 years this time around. We just deny that we are the cause of it. Folks, we need to be aggressive in countering these lies and deceptions coming from the deniers. The environment should be everyone’s #1 issue, and many people don’t see how closely tied the war in Iraq is with the state of our environment. CO2 emissions? Gee, if we weren’t so dependent on oil that we invaded a Middle Eastern country…………… Do people not understand this connection? And do people not see how throwing billions and billions of dollars down the drain in Iraq over the last couple years has seriously impacted our economy? Do people think these issues are unrelated?
As for the “experts” at ICECAP “Friends of Science” was really a Big Oil mouthpiece, with those scientists bought and paid for by the oil industry. The big names that appear again are Sallie Baliunas, Bob Carter, Vincent Gray, the Idso family, Pat Michaels (who has since been fired by the University of Virginia for lying about what he did there), Gary Sharp, Fred Singer, Roy Spencer, and George Taylor. New names (but not new in the GW denier category) include Robert Balling, Reid Bryson (who was responsible for the global cooling stuff in the 1970s that right-wingers mocked scientists for; now he’s on “their” side, so they’re cool with him), Chris De Freitas, William Gray, Tad Murty, and James O’Brien. I’m sure there are other connections to Big Oil.

BLU

BLU

The “Big Oil” companies and the “Big End of Town” so vilified by AGW Advocates are in fact the main beneficiaries of AGW.

They are all commercial opportunists and include financiers, resource miners, industrialists, manufacturers, investors (including super funds) energy providers and all forms of supply chain management.

They operate in the skeptic’s camp and the renewable energy markets from which they make huge profits.

Their formal voice is through direct influence upon government by their economic clout, their dialogue with legislators and often through political donations.

For this they receive favorable enabling legislation to support business operations along with political sponsorship/protection for those activities.

The Big End of Town is absolutely ecstatic about AGW. It does not matter if you are building a Toyota Prius, Renewable Technologies (Peel Energy, Shell), Mining “rare earths”, conducting related research or running a Carbon Stock Exchange. It is absolutely unprecedented in peace time, to be offered commercial opportunities, where someone else has created a “market” for you, funds your “Product Development”, provides a “Permissive Legislative Environment”, “Guarantees your Margin” and restricts “Competition”.

Who and what has created this industrial Nirvana? AGW Advocacy of course.

If one of the intentions of AGW was to close out Big Oil and the big end of town it so hates, it has spectacularly backfired.

This has to be one of the worst acts of political and commercial bastardry ever perpetrated by Governments in modern times.

Do you really imagine that when you make tired, old, sweeping 1970’s statements like “Big Oil mouthpiece” and “scientists bought and paid for by the oil industry”, that you can hide AGW’s culpability behind these?

Just who on earth do you think is making Wind Farms, Solar Farms and batteries for everything Green? The Tooth Fairy?

I am not an AGW 'Advocate' (capital A) spindoc. I am explaining why I accept the prevailing scientific view however.

Question.(1) The question was nothing to do with “Scientific Consensus”, it was what other agency or agencies anywhere in the world have governance over AGW Policy determination?

Every country in the world has governance over their own policy.
International agreements are negotiated and sought to try and actually make headway by getting at least the important countries heading in the right direction.
Countries that disagree with recommended targets are free to not sign such agreements. International politics are even more dysfunctional than domestic politics, unbelievable but true.
This idea that some sort of monolithic UN rules all the policy on AGW is a fantasy.

Question. (2) If there is no mandatory single orthodoxy, what other official orthodoxies are there?
(Please don’t re-badge “single orthodoxy” as << major coherent theory that appears to explain the great majority of the data>> otherwise you are in agreement.)

In science the 'conventional' view if is often described as the one that the majority believe explains most of the data. In science orthodoxy merely means 'conventional'. Otherwise you are trying to taint the discussion by implying that climate science is a religion, which it is often charged with by vehement opponents of the accepted scientific view.

Question.(3) If this is true, can you point to any other “official” scientific theories being considered?
The very fact that you are asking this question tells me you don't have a career in science. All scientific theories are considered and in the literature. If they are published, they are 'official' and considered. If the evidence does not support particular theories, eg. increases solar radiation responsible for warming, they are rejected. This often takes a long time, but not always. This is also in the literature.

cont'd

Scientific literature is a funny thing, it is always there and can be revisited in the light of new evidence, thus many theories may lie dormant on the shelf, ready for a dust off at any moment. I know most of your lot don't believe this, but it does happen.

The story promulgated by the 'skeptics' camp is that alternative theories are never given consideration for political reasons. They just can't accept that the alternative theories are weak.

There appears to some major inconsistencies in your narrative spindoc. You appear to believe that AGW is some leftie plot or cult and then go off on tangents saying that actually the 'Big End of Town' loves it and thus it is good (a veruitable Nirvana no less) for industrial manufacturing companies and energy companies etc.

You also make the mistake thinking that AGW has some sort of 'intention' (obviously invented by the lefties, right?). Where does this story come from?

The CRU was created by, wait for it...the Margaret Thatcher government! Wow, what a leftie plot.

There is no coherency in your concluding rants spindoc. For all our sakes, please be clear as to what you mean. It's just a jumble.
Political and commercial bastardry? Lefty plots, capitalism gone wild etc. Please be very clear as to what exactly you think is going on here.

I can accept that the world is chaotic and am under no illusions that international agreements are exceptionally difficult to make and that no meaningful agreements will ever likely be made but that is no excuse to not try.

However you seem to have a view that the world is both highly ordered and structured (by the UN of all organisations *snort*) and yet somehow chaotic and totally confusing at the same time. It's like some sort of conspiracy where everone is making out like bandits except you and yours.

The questions are very simple Bugsy. Only three or four words needed per answer.

1.What other agency or agencies anywhere in the world have governance over AGW Policy determination?

2.What other official orthodoxies are there?

3.Can you point to any other “official” scientific theories being considered?

The rest of your response is "mitigation" not "answer".

To be OR not to be:) Again! Both sides hold there beliefs, and that will do.

I hold up the arm of spin doc as the most convincing to date.

http://tinyurl.com/6xkqazg

Its only a matter of time to see which horse passes the winning post.

Bring forth the truth.

I think you will enjoy the link:)

BLUE

Thank you for a fascinating discussion. From one side: alarmists, from the other: denialists - or even worse (ptuh, ptuh !) [and it's so horrible, I must put it in double parentheses: ['skeptics'].

And then from Deep Blue, the acme of discursive sophistication: DUUUH

Yes, of course global warming is occurring - at what rate, and from what causes, may be more debatable (ergo, I must be a 'skeptic': horrors !)

All the while, as Spindoc notes,

"The Big End of Town is absolutely ecstatic about AGW. It does not matter if you are building a Toyota Prius, Renewable Technologies (Peel Energy, Shell), Mining “rare earths”, conducting related research or running a Carbon Stock Exchange. It is absolutely unprecedented in peace time, to be offered commercial opportunities, where someone else has created a “market” for you, funds your “Product Development”, provides a “Permissive Legislative Environment”, “Guarantees your Margin” and restricts “Competition”."

Sorry, Lexi, I know that you want to pour sugar over everything, but what a pathetic bloody level of debate.

Jo

Joe,

I only put 'skeptic' in parentheses so as not to confuse the label the anti-AGW crowd like to call themselves with the actual definition of skeptic.

A real skeptic would countenance that whatever they are skeptical about could actually be true. Many of these galoots would not even do that.
Spindoc, I'll try and keep this brief
1.What other agency or agencies anywhere in the world have governance over AGW Policy determination?

The Australian Department of Climate Change
The United States Environmental Protection Agency
The UK Department of Energy and Climate Change
Just to name three.

2.What other official orthodoxies are there?
The sense in which you use the term 'official orthodoxy' does not really happen in AGW (or science). There is a prevailing consensus, but this can change. This is an exceptionally badly worded question that implies a religious belief. If you do not think this is true, then I cannot answer you. Oh whoops more than 4 words, you probably haven't made it this far.

3.Can you point to any other “official” scientific theories being considered?
Yes probably, in fact I already mentioned one that was, however it really depends on what "official" means to you.

Your questions suck, they aren't specific and they are loaded with terribly ambiguous and biased language.

I agree Joe,it is pathetic. My answers are not satisfactory because I can't seem to understand the questions. I shouldn't even bother trying.

Hi Jo (Loudmouth),

It's always good to hear from you. I'm sorry that you're disappointed with the level of debate on this thread. I've stated in the past that climate change science may well be a subject about which many people actually know little but feel they ought to know a great deal. It's therefore a perfect subject for people to give "pseudo" answers which are in line with their broader political opinions. Tor Hundloe points out in his book, "From Buddha to Bono: Seeking Sustainability,"We would not be as worried as we presently are about the adverse impacts of climate change, food security for the poor, water security for all, the continuing loss of biodiversity, and the ongoing threat of environmental diseases if we had the appropriate scientific understanding, if we had the necessary tools, and if we were marshalling them to ameliorate the problems. We have allowed the threats to mount up without fashioning the appropriate tools and seeking real solutions..." Part of the problem may also be that many people have a propensity to discount the future. Many might feel that they won't be around to benefit from a good time in the future - so they want to have it now regardless of the long-term consequences. Don't worry if some people appear in not having a clue - they're still entitled to an opinion. Although possibly not their facts.

And then from Deep Blue, the acme of discursive sophistication: DUUUH.......LOL The so called experts, the tops of the tree, the one,s we all invest in for the answers.........don't have a clue!...LOL. So what are you worth? lol I'll tell you.....nothing!:)

And bug-breath......Here's some high-tec advice form him......

"I agree Joe,it is pathetic. My answers are not satisfactory because I can't seem to understand the questions. I shouldn't even bother trying".

I'll make sure I tell my children that.

See...those that think they understand, seem to be not able to tell us what the big joke is....besides them:) At least the Environmentalist groups shows the human impact and the rest.....well I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

Welcome to the on line upper level bullies that know nothing.LOL..excepted to make fools of people. CLAP.CLAP,CLAP....you all must be proud of your selves. and lets tell the people that one of us has cancer Lexi...LOL. You are just a joke:)

Check Mate!

Case closed.

idiots:)

BLUE

I rest my case, DB, thank you :)

Now, is there any chance that we can get back to the issues, without the name-calling ?

Global warming is occurring: an 5-cm rise in sea-levels and 0.8 degree Celsius rise in world temperatures, in the last sixty years.

Okay: evidence that it IS man-made, concurrent with increases in CO2 production by industrial activity ?

Evidence that the net level of CO2 would still keep rising even if there were no further deforestation, etc. ?

Evidence that efforts planned over, say, the next twenty years (efficiencies, wind-farms, solar arrays, geo-thermal and nuclear energy, etc.) won't be sufficient to start reducing CO2 production ?

Joe

DB:

"No one can make a fool of you except yourself," was advice that my father taught me many years ago. It went along with the ethos of - you can't be responsible for other people's behaviour, only your own.
So chin up, - don't worry if you haven't a clue - as I wrote earlier- you're still entitled to an opinion. Keep smiling.

cont'd ...

If the world's population does continue to grow we will overshoot, and probably seriously, the globe's carrying capacity. We will then suffer for ages, as will the natural world, until we can reduce the human population and return our ecosystems to sustainable health.
We need to recognise serious overshoot as an inevitable consequence of human population growth and the natural desire by all humans to have a middle-class lifestyle. The only choice we have is how to manage our way through it.

So chin up, - don't worry if you haven't a clue........LOL You just don't get it, do you:) Arse holds are def to day:) The wheelchair champs LOL. and no-one will ever trust you again.

Go laugh that one off:)

BLUE

Bugsy
The questions are direct and simple, they are not loaded in any way, they are definitely not ambiguous and moreover, the answers are very easy to obtain.

1. There is only one International, Global, and non-sovereign governance authority for AGW it is the UN (Through the UNFCCC or FCCC). A single entity for governance.

The three you quoted are all sovereign or national bodies, Australia, US and UK. They do not do governance of international treaties.

2. The UN has a “single” orthodoxy, which is”Global Warming caused by human C02 emissions.” There is no other orthodoxy from the UN, a singular “official” mandatory orthodoxy.

3. The IPCC does not, has not and will never include material from contrary science, only that which supports “their” singular orthodoxy; others may get a mention but no papers. For the UN to do otherwise would be contrary to self interest.

If you accept the prevailing scientific view, you accept the orthodoxy of AGW. That puts you like so many others into the “public electoral” part of the overall Advocacy Block.

You are perfectly entitled to those views and I don’t challenge your right to them. This thread has been about both the basis for those views and the mechanisms employed to justify them. I say again, I admire your tenacity, passion and determination. You have earned a great deal of respect.

I have always found it odd that those who support AGW seem to constantly abuse skepticism.

Climategate was an internal breach, the own goals from Michael Mann, Pen. State University, Phil Jones of the CRU and the IPCC’s Mr. Pashauri were not by skeptics.

So why don’t those responsible for stuffing up cop it? Surely they are responsible for leaving public support high and dry not skeptics?

Politicians seem unlikely to ever sign anything binding; they will keep tokenism alive but quietly strangle AGW and bury it in the back yard at some stage. The Advocacy Block will continue to talk it up and abuse skepticism to get “dead cat bounce”.

As for cult tactics, we have your number. 34 actually.

DB:

You'll have to try again. Your last post makes no sense at all.

I can only hope deep blue you had a few before posting that.
yes I do not want to talk to you, nore however do I want you to swear in that manner for no reason.
Just this, I believe in not reporting you for that I am letting OLO down.
I refrain from reporting this time but in advance say good by, you are not in control of your thoughts or self ,only time separates you from being given the door.

Out of respect, I grant you your wish. I'll leave you with this.

Old souls have long memories.

The knights of the round-table would of been proud for your gallantry.

As you were.

BLUE

Hi Lexi,

I don't think you have to worry about population over-shoot, as long as women around the world can get a decent education: for every couple of years of education beyond primary school, women tend to marry a year later and have smaller families. With better education, women can go for better jobs, choose their husbands more carefully rather than being forced to marry; they would be more aware of contraception and how to get it, and the benefits of family planning.

It's not automatic, of course, but generally, and eventually, lower birth rates are a consequence of better women's education. Even in Australia, whereas women were marrying on average in their early twenties back around 1970, when participation in tertiary education was really just kicking off for women here,nowadays close to 60 % of commencing students are women, and they are marrying on average at around thirty. It is no surprise that, if immigration had not occurred, Australia's birth-rate would barely reach replacement rate.

In fact, immigrants to Australia - who tend to be of early working age - take some of the population pressure off their home countries. Of course, having migrated, they tend to eventually have a major effect on local population growth since they often marry and have their kids here.

Countries with very low or negative population growth rates tend to provide wide educational opportunities for women. In fact, perhaps the best foreign aid that Australia could provide would be for scholarships for girls, wherever they may be.

Doesn't this make sense, Lexi ?

Joe

Actually spindoc, the questions are not direct and simple. That you think they are speaks volumes. Oh and I see you had your own answers pre-prepared that you think are the 'correct' viewpoint. That's gotta be a number.

1. Ah, international, global and non-sovereign, these are criteria you never mentioned that had to be included. Nevertheless, every country has their own agency that determines their own climate policy positions. The IPCC is a group that synthesises the scientific literature and determines the consensus, as it was created to do. This was not controversial more than a decade ago, why is it now? Did they come up with something you didn’t like?

2. In science the ‘orthodoxy’ is the mainstream, conventional view. This is the definition of orthodoxy as it pertains to science. So, by definition there cannot be more than one ‘orthodoxy’. However, in science the orthodoxy is allowed to change. There are many competing theories at any one time. So, this is why I misinterpreted what you were trying to say because it was such a badly worded (and yes, loaded) question. There are many competing theories, but only one ‘orthodoxy’ at any one time. This is not a ‘cult’ characteristic.

3. This is something just made up, or repeated, which means something someone else made up and you believe.
You say I am perfectly entitled to my views and you don’t challenge my right to them. You don’t honestly believe that? You have essentially called me a cult member that needs a ‘walk away package’. Oh yes, I can see that you respect my right to my own views. My views are mainstream. Yours appear a tad zealous and confused (which numbers are they BTW?).

The rest...obligatory ‘climategate’ reference...again with the cult tactics and some obscure reference that you have never explained. I’m sure it’s very funny within your group of ‘friends’. I can imagine it now, “I called this guy on the internet a number 34”, chuckle, snort slaps on the knees all round.

Joe,

What you're saying makes a lot of sense. Education is the key. However I was talking globally. Rationality dictates that the planet has a finite amount of resources and that it can tolerate only a limited amount of pollution. Therefore if world population continues to grow rapidly, if industrialisation spreads around the world, and if pollution and resource depletion continues at an increasing rate - we do need to ask, as I stated previously - where is human society headed - we can't just be content to sit by and do nothing - we do need to look to our future and those of future generations - education is indeed the key

Bugsy,

I think your last post highlights the problem; you don’t understand where things fit. You have moved all the elements around into other topics in your response. I think this has simply compounded your confusion.

The reason for pointing out the roles and responsibilities of the UN, is simply to demonstrate that anyone supporting this view does so with the full understanding that this is a flawed structure, it is a “closed” entity and we all need to understand that flawed/closed governance produces flawed/closed outcomes. It is also a key source of skepticism.

So let’s put things back in their correct boxes.

1. Governance means just that. Individual national policies do not belong here. The IPCC is not in governance and belongs in 3.. Scientific consensus belongs in 3.. The UN remains the single governance on AGW, unless you can name another my point remains valid.
2. “In science the orthodoxy is the mainstream”. True Bugsy, it should be. The problem here is that it is only the UN’s orthodoxy that is viewed as mainstream because we have no other choice. Now tell us what other orthodoxy the UN promotes besides AGW?
3. You didn’t respond to any issues at all here on the single streaming science from the IPCC, but you did say your views were “mainstream”. No Bugsy, they are not. They are the UN’s single orthodoxy, governed by absolute UN governance and supported by single stream science from the IPCC.

Buy into it by all means, defend it as hard as you like, provide as much “science” as you like and produce as much supporting advocacy opinion as you like. But you cannot change the very basis for your views.

To your point that, “this was not controversial more than a decade ago”. Nonsense, contrary science had it nailed years ago, you chose not to listen.. What happened was “Climategate” and a cricket score of own goals from the CRU and IPCC.

The last point remains unanswered, if UN/CRU stuff ups caused the current problems, why blame skeptics?

Bugsy,

You have questioned my sincerity, you don’t need to, I promised to treat you with respect and I am keeping that commitment. I didn’t accuse you or anyone else of being a cult member, please re-read same. I suspect that many on OLO who may or may not agree with your views, will quietly if not publicly be saying, ‘Onya Bugsy.

Back to the UN. I know many people who support AGW, yet in discussions there is often acknowledged serious doubt about how the UN has gone about things and the claims they have made.

When asked why that doubt about the UN does not translate into the same level of doubt about AGW, the answer is always the same. “Well, there are so many governments, with so much legislation and so many public, scientific, political, academic and media advocates all over the world, surely it is inconceivable they could be wrong?”

“There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that is generally adopted.”

(Stephen Schopenhauer)

The core of AGW has little to do with science; I doubt it was initially politically inspired and there is no evidence it was engineered in any way. We are left with “the conviction that is generally adopted”.

It takes very little effort to see that it has evolved, morphed and more recently, been steered by opportunism. It is self evident that none of the key advocates are in control. “It” controls “them”. The only evidence of organized activity is from commercial/industrial opportunism and they are making lots of “dosh” at our expense.

The rear guard action to prevent a collapse of this phenomenon is coming, curiously enough, from public advocacy with absolutely no scientific skills, just lots of information.

Now that is worth pondering

"Now that is worth pondering"

Actually, it isn't. It's just a narrative that is made up and put on the internet. As is all of your polemic.

Re that quote,

“There is no opinion, however absurd, which men will not readily embrace as soon as they can be brought to the conviction that [it] is generally adopted.”

Arthur Schopenhauer. A bit of pedantics never hurt anybody :)

Two more quotes - from Arthur Schopenhauer -

"Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world."

And -

"All truth passes through 3 stages - First, it is ridiculed. Second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Yes Lexi, that first quote is right on the button: my wife's career was destroyed by a psychotic boss who had exactly that lack of vision, and couldn't see what valuable work she was doing in Indigenous tertiary education. Indigenous affairs may be littered with destruction on the one hand (especially at the hands of its pig-ignorant elites), and wasted opportunities on the other, but you have to keep on.

Schopenhauer was one of the greatest, he would have been on our side :)

Joe

As far as I can see we have about 80 posts on the topic of AGW, and there have been no scientific link wars.

Is this a first?

spindoc:

It's rather refreshing don't you think? Who wants wars anyway?
However I did come across two links - just for interest's sake:

http://www.austrade.gov.au/Stern-warning-to-the-world/default.aspx
"Stern Warning to the World," by Tim Harcourt.

And:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=9115
"Appealing to science in the AGW debate is delusional,"
by John Tons, 2 July 2009.

Joe:

Your wife sounds like an incredible lady and I'm sorry that she had to put up with a bully. Unfortunately, it's often the norm. The wrong people with blinkered vision are often in charge. I suspect, because they're not a threat to anyone. Very few stand up to them however - I did to one of mine and frankly lived to regret it. I should have simply (and quietly) left. All that happened was that I couldn't ever give that place of emplyment as a reference, and lost about eight years of my life. But I learned a lesson, ( to keep my mouth shut) so I guess that counts for something. Yes, I like Schopenhauer as well.
As you can tell.

Thanks Lexi, yes, she certainly was. I was incredibly lucky.

Are you all finished?

BLUE

Do we ignore it?
Do we care?
Deep Blue visits at night, not quite him self.
And does what?
Sometimes it is swearing ,others like last night and early this morning its just graffiti, mean unfocused, but is it right to ignore it,turn the other cheek.
Still have not reported you DB,, you said it was over , late at night you go out of your way to remind us all, only the letter T separates a Wit from a Twit, you do it well.

Belly, they wrote a song about DB didn't they?

When a hiss from Deep Blue, takes a bite out of you, it's "A Moray"