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?