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.