Sadly, I have had to place the "CAGW debate" on my list of taboo topics, for exactly the reasons that are presented here. We have gone far, far beyond the stage of open and honest debate and discussion, and are now well into the realm of belief or non-belief.

Which is of course the turf where religious wars are fought.

But in this case, atheism is not allowed. If you are not a "true believer", then you are deemed to be a "denier". It is not permissible even to say "surely, the jury is still out", without being branded as an evil person whose happiness is derived from seeing entire populations swallowed up by rising sea levels.

So I'm pleading ignorance.

But there's one thing of which I'm reasonably certain.

The minute - no, the very millisecond - that there are no political points to be scored, or careers to be made, the "problem" will disappear as abruptly as it appeared.

im not picking on you..belly
but mate...quote..""my ace on yours,
check how many say..man made climate/change..is real.""

your clearly talking about the % age[percentage]
who responded to their loaded questions

of the converted scientists...alone
who were surveyed..they got their number's

it turns out the 90%...is made up of less than 1000
of the 100's of thousands of scientists..[who responded]

ie the number
is pure spin*

but think how many carbon/experts..there were
just a few years ago...

[i recall al gore was 'training'
global warming 'experts'..in some area...that isnt even a science

[i just heard..one..on the abc
couldnt even say how much c02..in a ton of coal...lol]

so belly
if YOU DONT KNOW EITHER
what makes you trust experts..WHO DONT KNOW?

its purely because of alp connections

alp good..liberal bad..
[well guess who thunk of this sceme

john howard...]

Supplementary question Mr speaker.
leave is granted

""Mr Tony Abbott...proven untrue
petrol= 6 and a half cents fuel rise.""

when juliar was saying 1000..!

today
she says ONLY 500..!

just so you can score a cheap point*

listen to your next proof
""As further information is to be released""

lol

that they makeup...as they go

policy on the run..[just like the 1000..became lol 500]
and the refugees went from country to country...
as juliar made policy..*on the run

""on Sunday,
the full,and more IMPORTANTLY
true impacts of this tax.""

well lets just wait and see

BUT MATE SEE..how they been playing games
how 1000 became 500..

how only 1000..[or 500?]..will pay...lol

HAD PETROL STILL BEEN IN THE NUMBER
then we would be paying more..to one thousand

not the same to 500...alone to pay it all

""Will the Honorable spin/master agree
to wait..until the public has time to understand"""

no juliar
is saying her pap
to the converted on sunday

no doudt claiming the high ground
by policy on the run

""the real tax vs the Abbott spin.""

OH SO ITS A TAX?

funny bout that
juliar says it isnt..!

then that it is..!
then that it isnt..!

"the real tax"
[lol]

is that your opinion/words

*or hers?

@spindoc: We are told that 90% of scientists agree.

And so spindoc justifies his nick again.

So you claim we are told that? But spindoc, you don't tell us who is making the claim. Perhaps you could supply a link? I am hoping so because maybe the person making the claim supplied a little more context.

As it stands the statement is almost meaningless. Who gets to nominate who is a credible scientist and who isn't? Who gets to say whether a scientist studying studying the sex life of deep sea corals is credible when it comes to climate? It all gets rather subjective; the argument devolving into a yelling match over who is credible. Oddly enough each side pushes hard to get people who agree their point of view to be considered very credible. Preferably the only credible ones.

How, utterly, infantile. And yet spindoc, who has been an eager participant in these all arguments on the numerous times it has been raised on OLO seeks to have the debate all over again. It's like some tiresome broken record playing in the background.

I have only ever seen one sane answer on who is a credible scientist in any given field, and that oddly enough is: the ones that work in it. All the other scientists who work in other fields are about as credible or otherwise as the local butcher. These scientists who work in the field aren't hard to pick out. They are the ones whose names appear on papers published in peer reviewed journals on the topic.

It's not rocket science. Any moron can see the logic behind it, and anyone who has spent some time pondering it comes to the same answer. Yet spindoc asks the question yet again.

By this definition the overwhelming majority of credible scientists do indeed thing their models are accurate. Which is hardly surprising, since they created them. It leads to another debate which no doubt spindoc will merely try to lead us into. Unfortunately it is not so easily resolved.

rstuart, I think you will find the subject of this thread is freedom of speech. But I’m confident you don’t wish to go there and will settle for another diversion.

Your post has nicely encapsulated the criticisms I’ve just made of the warmertariat, many thanks for providing so many examples.

My post has clearly driven you to more excesses and the cause of this is as stated, you cannot handle having your orthodoxy questioned.

You now know what you are, why you are there, how you got there and more importantly, where you are going. Nowhere!

Congratulations.

I am bemused by the comparison between religion and science.
Religion is set in concrete. [As some would have you believe ]
Science is evolutionary. [ As some would say is rubbish ]

@spindoc: I think you will find the subject of this thread is freedom of speech.

OK, and you raise this becuase ...

@spindoc: any opposition will be denied access to the democratic principles of free speech.

Right. So no one is talking about this right now. We hardly hear it mentioned, because the debate has been shut down. Silly me.

@spindoc: You now know what you are, why you are there, how you got there and more importantly, where you are going. Nowhere!

You're right about that. I knew where this would go, yet apparently I need you to point it out. It seems we are two peas in a pod spindoc. It's a depressing thought.