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 !