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.