Like the ancient Chinese curse, it seems we are destined to live in “interesting times”, and for some, more interesting than others perhaps. The heat seems to be being turned up on Professor David Karoly, a well known Australian alarmist. (And implicitly on many other AGW supporters)

In the recent letter to Professor Karoly from Malcolm Roberts, all the claims related to AGW are challenged and as yet, remain unsubstantiated.

Where are the Kings Clothes?

What is interesting is that having failed to justify his claims, Professor Karoly is again being asked to do so, this time the request for justification has been widely circulated.

Copied to:

University of Melbourne Chancellor and Vice-Chancellor.
Professor Andy Pitman, computer modeller and UN IPCC Lead Author
Professors Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and Tim Flannery
Dr Megan Clark, CSIRO Chief Executive
Dr Andrew Johnson, CSIRO Group Executive—Environment
All members of federal parliament
Various scientists
Chairman of the ABC Board
ABC's Managing Director
ABC's Chris Uhlmann.

Whilst this offers little opportunity for comment by AGW supporters on OLO, primarily because if the highest Authorities for AGW can’t substantiate their claims, what chance is there for the rest of us?

It is however, reassuring for skeptics because all the questions we have previously tabled here on OLO are being put to these authorities in a very public fashion. If these authorities fail to address these questions for the politicians, it will be very hard for policy makers to support them as the circulation of this letter, publicly puts the whole warming movement on notice. The “dog ate my homework” defense went out of the window with the distribution list.

The “warmertariat” defense seems to be left with shoot the messenger?

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=716&Itemid=1

Yawn!......The capitalist dollar at work again.

BLUE

ok spindoctor, the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition posted that letter online on 25/1/11

A week later, the Australian Climate Science Coalition still hasn't published Malcolm Robert's letter. Do you know why?

Anyway, you seem to think the "warmertariat" will shoot the messenger.

Nope, no need to:

>> In recent years, as well as learning more about climate I have been learning more about true forgiveness.

Associated with the power of forgiveness, the work of Marshall Rosenberg and my own personal experience shows that knowing one's needs and identifying another person's needs enables both to find ways to fulfill their real needs.

After understanding your needs I'm confident I will be able to assist you in meeting your needs. <<

While sounding like something you would write, do you really expect Malcolm Roberts to receive a response?

Btw, did you make up "warmertariat"? I haven't seen it before.

bonmot, << A week later, the Australian Climate Science Coalition still hasn't published Malcolm Robert's letter. Do you know why?>>

Nothing to do with the "Australain Climate Science Coalition", try nzclimatescience. Do you ever "see" what is printed or do you just feel the emotion?

bonmot, for goodness sake, at least check your facts before operating mouth, also, my MP has already seen the letter.

To answer your question about coining the phrase "warmertariat", it was coinded by President Vaclav Klaus in his inaugural address to the Global Warming Policy Foundation, October 19, 2010.

If that's your best intellectual effort, why not do as Deep-Blue does, just Yawn.

Or you could address some of the points submitted in the letter, which you can't so you won't.

Actually spindoc, Malcolm Roberts is an Australian writing an 'open' letter to an Australian.

It might seem strange to you, but it is not so unusual for the Australian Climate Science Coalition to bat for one of their own. Indeed, Malcolm Roberts is a very vocal anti-AGW over here, particularly in the mining sector - you would know that, right?

Quite frankly, I don't give a hoot if you do frequent sites like the NZCSC - it just seems odd that the Australian counterpart hasn't posted the 'open' letter - it is a doozy, after all.

I'm not doubting that these letters have gone out spindoctor (despite your insinuation), even to your MP. You also seem to think I am doubting the sincerity of the author, and yourself. I am not.

Vaclav Klaus - thanks, very presidential that "warmertariat" word.

>> If that's your best intellectual effort, why not do as Deep-Blue does, just Yawn. <<

Ok spindoctor, you are questioning my intellect now. Tell me, why should I bother with any of your posts? At least I had the decency to read and reply.

As to your last condescending put down:

>> Or you could address some of the points submitted in the letter, which you can't so you won't. <<

Yes spindoc, I could.
But seeing my intellect doesn't come up to your expectations, I doubt very much that whatever I did say would make any sense to you, whatsoever.

Ah, bonmot, what a terrible affliction is ego.

Skeptics don’t need one because they have not bought into AGW one way or the other, we are not the victims. The ‘warmertariat” on the other hand have taken the bait, lock stock and barrel, thus it requires you to defend it.

I think you miss the point about the letter from Malcolm Roberts. It has been copied to all the recipients listed, which means they have all been challenged and each knows what challenge has been tabled to everyone, which means that no one can ever again operate independently of this “shared” challenge. If the challenge remains unanswered then the challenge remains valid.

You go round and round and bl**dy round without challenging any part of the assertions made by Malcolm Roberts. It is totally irrelevant as to who has published it on their blogs; it’s about who the recipients are and what they can possibly do about it. If they cannot respond they are finished, just like you.

When are you going to defend yourself and challenge what has been asserted by Malcolm Roberts?

Drop the ducking and weaving, read the letter and if you can, respond to it. If you can’t, accept the fact that AGW is finished. You are a victim, you are not culpable, you will not be the subject of a class action and you must now ask yourself what you can do to save face, a minor issue.

Many of the recipients of this letter are indeed culpable. The only issue that remains for discussion is who “they” will blame.

It is telling that I predicted you would shoot the messenger. Your second paragraph did just that. Like I said, is that your best effort?