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.