Here is an explanation for the sometimes curious reasoning used by our climate sceptic friends to support their position:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/-1p2hl.html

Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

lets put your stick back in the right hole
with your own link

QUOTE..""Instant gratification is a powerful,
but flawed, human motivator."""

lol
like free solar
or a SPECIAL top in tarrif...cash back?

or honours from ya mates..
[instead of ridicule we lot get from you lot?]

well bend over take ya stick back

quote...'"IF YOU are down a blind alley"""stoney broke
no policy...no exttra taxable vises

""searching for that perfect Christmas gift
for your climate [delted]...fiend,""

""you could do worse than slinging them a book""
or a link...""on Emotional Intelligence.""

""Why? Research is mounting that your fiend
is the victim of one of the brain's many computing glitches.>>

plus greed and self rightiousness
and plenty of govt cas

""More particularly, he has been derailed
by an emotional response that is at best unhelpful and at worst catastrophic."'

i love how you lot look for them strong words
catostrophic...hollow cost...10 meter sea level rises..poles are melting..[forgetting one of them could completrly melt..and the sea not rise one drop

""He has capitulated
to the pleasure of the here and now."""

taken the govt bribes
and now endlessly..trying to justify their own fearmongering[greedy fears]...hoping they will be proved right...not the frauds they are

Thank you Anthonyve, now I understand.

Anyone who could be impressed by that pile of tripe you referenced to would be a pushover for a smart wordsmith, & likely to fall for the global warming con.

Hasbeen

...or perhaps your entrenched and often-voiced attitude proves the article's point?

purerot..right back at ya

""or perhaps your entrenched
and often-voiced attitude proves the article's point?""

ya know i love ya
but did you get free[subsised]..solar
or the top up?

or the tax cut"
or any other advantage..lol
from these green jobs...[heck cant you see..>>

it applies more to you lot
than we..[paying double for services]

someone tasted the sugar..!

it wernt me..!

all i got is namecalling spin lies guilt blame shame
and extra taxes...no tac cut..no solar subsidy..no green/nosing teenie greenie green-job

OUG,

Ya know I love ya too : )

Hope your Christmas is bright.

Hi Hasbeen,
Your response appears to prove the old adage: Attempts to shoot the messenger invariably result in validating the message.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Poirot your often reasonable and mostly logical posts seems to invoke some testy responses from those emotive types, we see in the climate debate.

The truth is, that the article to which Anthonyve refers, does make a lot of sense, considering climate skeptics have no actual or logical basis for their denial."Empty vessels make the loudest noise" as is said.

It is also possibly identical with people whom like to talk up the problem of boat people, or publicly rubbish or distribute unfunny low grade humour to your email address about Gillard in order to elicit favorable responses for themselves. Someone must encourage them.

I politely ask them to stop sending their often brainless output to my email address or too at least keep me out of the loop.

It's currently fashionable to deny climate change, or express hatred or take the mickey out of Gillard, or have a dis-proportionate fear boat people, even though logic and reality would determine that such emotional nonsenses are a complete waste of time and space in the general scheme of things.

The less educated and informed people become,as is the case today and worsening, more liars, urgers and agitants will gain more traction. Unfortunately the powers that be today would like to make mushrooms out of us all and for the most part are succeeding and getting better at this as time goes on.

Anthony as you can See snide ill informed or not informed at all, comments take the place of understanding here.
As a once hard fishing man beaches saw me every day.
This subject still attracts the ones we must throw back, good luck with it.

The self indulgence of warming High Priests along with those enjoying tax payer junkets for warming love fests just show the idiotic nature of the posted link from Anthonyve. The denial of the socialist who believe they have found a moral reason for wealth distribution is clear to anyone interested in true evidence. True evidence is not something the warmist or its backers are interested in. You would think after so many dismal prophecies that they would hide under a rock.

Hi Belly,
A good analogy.
Fortunately, time - and science - are on our side.
All we need is to be patient.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Hi Runner,
Please see my response to hasbeen a couple of posts up.
It would seem equally apropos to your good self.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

I enjoy your company Anthony, if I do not make it to that future remind them for me.
Runner! High Priest no less!
Hope they are more informed, In fact they are mate!

Anthony,

Do you have anything better than this glorified ad hominem ?

Why do you think that it can be turned only against climate sceptics ? It can be turned against anybody, any position, if you think about it.

You really do need a few more arrows in your quiver than this one.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Joe,
Two points:
First, please see my earlier comment regarding shooting the messenger and what that usually achieves.
Second point, that the subject matter can be applied to anyone is exactly what the article says. Perhaps in your haste to respond negatively you didn't have time to read it thoroughly.
Of course it can be applied to all kinds of situations. However, in this case, the author chose to narrow his focus to Climate Sceptics.
If you take issue with that then please talk to the author.
I merely posted an article that I believe is relevant to recent discussions.
If you felt that it applied to you and in a perjorative way, then that is between you and your thoughts.
It has nothing to do with me.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthonyve & T2, please stay around for a decade or two. You should be happy to, as you have this idea that time is on your side. This does at least tell us that your wrong headed beliefs may be honestly held, unlike those of your trusted UEA "scientists". The last batch of emails has shown most of them know their science won't hold water, just as much as it won't hold heat.

I'm happy to wait a decade or so for your apology. We won't hold it against you. After all you have been conned by experts, with billions of tax payer funds to help them.

You should start to read something other than the propaganda you favour, & start to find some of the truth, before you suffer from frost bite, walking to work.

Yes I know some are preaching some claptrap that global warming will make things colder, I think it's the same bloke who reckoned a decade ago that snow would not be seen in Britain by now.

Really is a pity, for the cause, that so many have recorded all these statements, so there are not many places for the con men to hide any more.

Perhaps you could start practicing those apologies some time soon.

Hasbeen

The thing that intrigues me is your idea that "all those scientists" are in cahoots with a global warming conspiracy.

Is it just climate scientists who are corrupt?

You've mentioned in the past health problems that you've had....and no doubt you benefitted from medical science to help you recover. You obviously don't consider all science is a scam.

Why do you classify climate science in this regard? Scientific discipline is practiced spectrum wide....why are climate scientists singled out as liable to be involved in a scam?

Hi Hasbeen,
Ever heard of Occam's Razor, "That explanation which requires the fewest number of hypotheses of a fundamental nature is the one most likely to be true'.
Now, let's apply it here.
One the one hand we have your assertion that climate scientists around the world, NASA, the militaries of all the developed countries, (including the US Joint Chiefs), all the world's meteorological Societies, The CSIRO, The chief scientists of all the worlds's developed countries, the world's leading universities - all of these folk are engaged in this collosal deceipt.
On the other hand we have a second alternative - that human induced global warming is real.
Occam's Razor definitely comes down on the side of human induced global warming being real.
In fact, what you purport to believe - without evidence - is an extraordinary assertion.
And the article that I linked to at the head of this thread, explains why you cling with such desperation to that assertion, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
There is a second possible explanation for your position. It's called Motivated Reasoning. It grows out of your experiencing a form of cognitive dissonance. You can find an explanation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivated_reasoning
I suspect that with most climate sceptics the problem is a combination of both conditions.
However, be of good cheer. Time will eventually help you to accept reality.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

why are climate scientists singled out
cause there is no such thing

http://www.google.com/search?q='climate+scientist'+origen+first+use

the nearest i could find was the first link
'the histry of climate science'

told ya they were making it up as they went
http://www.livescience.com/1292-history-climate-change-science.html

some of the 'mile stones'
...'are just pure bull shhhhh it'

appart from al gfore
who certifies a climate scientist
[not climatologist or other such spin name

specificly
noting not one ;climate scientist'

but plenty of accoutants and other such frauds
prepared to be peers
to a science that dont egsist./..

but in putting together bits..to spin a histry
bingo its payday

Hi under one god,
Please see my response to hasbeen.
Your comment reinforces both what I explained there and the proposition laid out in the link at the head of the thread.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

I hope you weren't referring to me Belly, when you said, "This subject still attracts the ones we must throw back".

From my point of reference , that being my age Hasbeen, I can safely say that climate change is already "evident", in my lifetime so far. "Whether I live to see more of it", or not, is not part of my consideration when making this observation.

On Anthonyve's point about Occam's Razor, it seems to me, that if it is still possible, to do something about the changing climate, then it simply makes more sense to do something, than not.

As to the pace of change or degree of warming etc that seems to be the main point of conjecture in climate discussions, this still remains unknown, and into the space provided by this, steps the skeptics and reverse conspiracy theorists.

I am just stating "that in my life's experience, the climate is changing". A conclusion made from experience, not fuelled by skeptics or befuddled by science. A simple observation.

Indeed the changing climate is only one of the problems. The destruction to species and habitat caused by human habitation is another matter altogether, of much worse proportion that we also deny and dither over ; about what it is that we should do in some sort of co-ordinated way via agreements, about these self inflicted man made calamities.

Time will tell Hasbeen no doubt, but time also runs out.

Sounds like self deception to me T2.

Have any of you lot of ever read any of the climate gate 2.0 emails? If you haven't you are wasting every ones time chattering from a fools position.

Hi Hasbeen,
You base your entire argument on a bunch of emails, in the face of a vast amount of measurable, tangible evidence and you accuse others of foolishness.
Oh dear!
As I said earlier, a clear case of managed reasoning growing out of cognitive dissonance, coupled with an inability to manage delayed gratification.
But, if it makes you feel better...
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthony,

You have enjoyed so many breakthroughs and successes at Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban. Qatar should likewise be yet another stunning breakthrough, even though any reviews have been deferred until 2015 and the plan for any action deferred until 2020. It seems the more you try and the more you claim success, the further out your goals become, funny that is it not?

Some of us might wonder just how much success you can handle and why you are not delighted with the progress you have made?

Instead you worry your little head about the emotional well being of us poor losers, how thoughtful of you.

You are absolutely right of course; it is very difficult and emotionally stressful to position oneself as a skeptic. Given that we have decided not to buy and surrounded ourselves with utter ambivalence.

We do look at the warmers like you and say to ourselves “my god, I wish I were as reconciled and contented with my decisions as they are with theirs”.

It’s also interesting how you mangle our language to make your assertions. Having taken no position other than “we don’t believe a word of the emotive bull dust you are trying to sell us”, we are informed that skepticism is now a “position” that is based upon “curious reasoning” and requires an “explanation”.

Remember number one rule of sales, if the customer won’t buy, it is not their fault, it’s YOURS!

We all recognize your reflective angst of course and you do seem to be well out of your depth on this forum however, you do provide much entertainment.

Many thanks.

Hi spindoc,
At the risk of repeating myself, you are falling into the trap of shooting the messenger.
And, as I've already noted, efforts to do so usually result in validating the message.
Your response validates my message perfectly, particularly in that it is curiously defficient in any attempt to refute it. You simply, and rather ineffectively, attack me.
One could reasonably assume then that you have given up trying to refute the message under the sheer weight of evidence supporting human induced global warming.
Although, on the other hand, the article at the head of this thread explains why you probably haven't; given up that is.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

spindoc,

"...you do seem to be well out of your depth on this forum..."

What depth?

It's often quite shallow around here, a-c-t-u-a-l-l-y.

Naomi Klein on capitalism verses climate:

http://www.thenation.com/article/164497/capitalism-vs-climate

Poirot, rest assured Athonyve has it right.
In answering your self and others some shoot the messenger .
And in fact them selves in both feet.
Spin doc, descriptive TERM that.

Hi Anthony,
I don't think this analysis is likely to win over any of those you refer to as climate sceptic "friends".
As winning over more support for climate action is apparently your goal, perhaps it would be more constructive to ask "What can we do to help climate skeptics overcome their concerns & embrace the precautionary principle?".

I discovered a site that might just help find some constructive answers. please have a quick look at http://www.allourideas.org/forclimateskeptics
Regards
Chris
@landrights4all

Thanks Anthony, not sure what you said but i'll get back to you in 2020? Anyway, you have Belly's support, what more do you want?

He,he,he.

A bit off topic, but a horde of Christmas guests are about to arrive so my screen time will be seriously curtailed for the next couple of weeks.
I'll just take this opportunity to wish everyone compliments of the season and a great - and vocal - 2012.
Merry Christmas all.
Cheers,
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

I saw this comment elsewhere and heartily agree -

"Honestly, I am just stunned at the collective complete and utter ignorance of such a seemingly vast swathe of the population here in Oz. Apparently science is a political construct and meaningless in terms of its research, observations and achievement?

You honestly believe this is a rort by science looking for funding, as opposed to a real problem that the big fossil fuel based businesses and all their related vested interests are intent on sweeping under the carpet in order to protect themselves?"

The term is not sceptic - it's denialist.
Denialist -
"a person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence" or "the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality".

rache, how rash of you to label anyone not taken in by the climate change religion, or it's predecessor global warming (until the warming part was discredited), as 'denialist'.
Does that mean that the opposite of 'denialist' is 'someone of blind faith' or 'naive'? Certainly, I see believers in that vein as the vast majority of scientists (atmospheric scientists included), do not believe in man-made global warming, climate change or whatever the next convenient label for the non-phenomenon will be.

Remember Climategate!

Dear rache,

May I suggest two approaches to your post; the first is to refute the basis for your post, which I will do. The second would be to describe in sociological terms, what has happened to your adopted reasoning. Refuting the basis for your post may well be understood by you. The second part, the socialization of science will not be understood by you because if you did understand it, you would not have written what you did in the first place.

Firstly, to your assertions and descriptions of “denialists”. You suggest that there are those who regard “the science as a political construct and meaningless in terms of its research, observations and achievement?”

Correct. The instant science is politicized it is corrupted, hence the expression socialization of science, it is a political construct. Next you address the attributes of “research, observations and achievement”. In the case of this phenomenon the research is invalidated, the observations are non-empirical and the achievements are non-existent. (Except for the political achievements).

You accuse those who do not support your position as “denialists”, who refuse to accept “empirically verifiable reality". Now you have the problem of trying to explain why there is no empirical evidence, therefore no verifiable science and a complete absence of reality. You do of course; have all the time and space you could wish for to provide answers to these questions for your fellow OLO’ers. However, since these questions have been put to the warmertariat endlessly with no meaningful response, I’m afraid you have little hope, but we are listening.

In the end you are just repeating the warmertariat mantra without any understanding; you are just gullible.

The socialization of science undermines itself, if scientific discourse has nothing to do with reality, why does streptomycin cure TB and not magic

If that is the type of rubbish The age contains, then it is no wonder their sales are down.

I do wonder how many people would connect to Anthonys website to read his ramblings.

Most people are AGW sceptics simply because they are practical people who will only accept solid evidence on issues, not some religous driven tripe.

Alternatively, the possible explanations for alarmists and AGW believer's lack of reasoning is egotism, vanity, arrogance and elitism, projection of a desire to avoid their own personal demise into saving the world, religious substitution, cognitive dissonance, misanthropy and plain old stupidity.

Most obvious though, is a complete inability of AGW acolytes to consider and admit defects in AGW theory; and since the theory is a pack of lies, the inevitable resort to condescension, insult, threats and other bully-boy tactics when the lie is pointed out to them.

It should also be noted that the AGW 'theory' is almost identical to the Eden myth; that is, a perfect world with man living in harmony with nature/god until man 'eats from the fruit of knowledge/starts using fossil fuel' and is cast from this idyllic paradise into a nature disrupted hell-hole.

Whatever, AGW is agnotological.

there have been some massive falures in the green scam

dwtv...just spoke of the clever bying up outside germany..onselling in germany..plus collecting the credits back in cash

only 300 million..there
next they went to a collapse..solum..BANKRUPT
how much govt cash into them

not as much as went to that solar water heating tube mob in usa[solandra?]..that got billions..really billions..of govt bailouts
built a factory and went broke

green jobs boys
lol

a sukker born every second
enough guilt blame to go arround
please guys keep up...spain went huge on green jobs
now 25%..unemployment..and a bucket load of debt!

oh lord why so many follower's
willing to follow..any feel good scam?

cohenite
'It should also be noted that the AGW 'theory' is almost identical to the Eden myth '

you miss the obvious. The evolution religion uses the same reasoning and tactics of the warmist.

runner,

"The evolution religion uses the same reasoning and tactics as the warmist."

By "tactics", are you referring to the employment of factual data and and rational analysis?

Yes, I can see that sort of behaviour is a very slippery slope indeed.....

Poirot,

'By "tactics", are you referring to the employment of factual data and and rational analysis?'

You mean continual false claims and silly assumptions like climategate and the High priests predictions of no more rain in the Eastern States. Oh that's right just change the story when you are wrong. Evolutionist continue to do that. It is no wonder the false stories are so easily spread among the true believers.

All newspaper circulations are down I expect Banjo. The one you would least expect to be down would be The Age, because it still resembles a real newspaper.

Climate denialism, is navel gazing. (Pure and simple)

Climate science is reportedly crap.

Medical science is crap. (e.g. Breast implants and other cosmetic procedures) for one.

The nanny state is crap. When we live in a world that discourages smoking and drinking, but allows corporations to put things in the food chain that a study reported in The Age today explains. Drinking sweet fizzy drinks have now been found to cause chronic allergic reactions such asthma and COPD, and are basically considered likely to be as harmful as smoking and drinking.

http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/party-drinks-and-the-perilous-spoon-of-sugar-20111221

Tasmanian timber companies claiming environmental credentials, is crap.

My examples of crap are the first things that come mind from todays news alone, but there are many serious indiscretions now effecting our lives that are crap, based in crap and supported by crap.

It is convenient for the manufacture's of crap, to have us taking sides in the absence of any real answers to our direst needs. They're too busy making sub standard breast implants.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/doctors-urge-implant-register-20111221-1p5nk.html

And so the debate continues. At which time will the truth (particularly climate truth) become known ?, or relevant, or even worse, "super evident". Is it only then that we'll get on with the job of supporting a future?.

I'd like too think we are smarter than that.

Apologies for missing the link I meant to add after

"Tasmanian timber companies claiming environmental credentials, is crap.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-12-22/20111222-tasmanian-timber-products-boycotted-in-the-uk/374321 , in my last post.

cheers T2

Thinker,
You seem to be a bit short on practical thinking and sound more like an encyclopedia salesman telling me he is interested in my kids education. Should I be sceptical, you bet.

If you believe that humans have an influence on the earths climate, that is your business and when you can prove it come and talk to me with the proof. In the meantime I am not interested in your religous beliefs.

Yes, the age article was crap, a word you apparently like and i did not bother with your links. I am sure big Al or Tim will let us all know if AGW is proven.

Sorry I am not going to look at all the blogs, but I did look at the silly article, and all I have to say is - "what about the evidence against GW?"

You just have to laugh don’t you?

How will the “Brown Whore of Babylon” explain the 75% acquisition of two Tassie wind farm projects by China’s state owned coal giant Shenhua?

My sides are splitting; tears of laughter are rolling down my cheeks at the hypocrisy and unconscious incompetence of the warmertariat and the Australian Greens. Their March of Folly is taking them into increasingly uncharted nightmare zones. He, he he.

What evidence is that ? bridgejenny , against GW.

Where is this evidence that proves that humankind is "not " having an effect on our climate or environment.

If there were such evidence it would even be on the front page "The Age" Banjo.

The only case that really exists( as you say against GW) involves the refutation of the science. If there was no science there would be nothing to refute.

On the other hand, there is simply no science that proves that humankind is doing the right thing by it's planet and it's inhabitants. The notion is absurd.

And there is no science that proves that human habitation is neutral in effect either.

Thinker,
Not thinking again?

Dispite evidence that your so called scientists were fiddling the figures and making outragous claims about sea rises and UK kids not knowing what snow was, which have all been untrue. Not to mention the scientists ostrocising the ones that questioned AGW.

Your still believe, with religous fervour, that humans are responsible for a variation in climate. You are the one making the claim so it is up to you to prove it. Not me, I am sceptical, but if someone comes up with the evidence I will change my mind. As i said before I am sure Tim and big Al will let us know if that ever occurs.

Did you notice there was another earthquake in NZ today? Does that not indicate to you that there are somethings that humans have no influence over. Maybe climate is just one of those things. Hey, tides could be another.

Don't be so silly Banjo, you must realise that all earth quakes are caused by elevated CO2 levels.

Just ask bonmot, I'm sure he'll tell you.

Your faith in humankind is touching Banjo, but frankly irrational.

Making a sarcastic assertion about CO2 and earthquakes doesn't constitute debate Hasbeen , so why do it ?.

I too Banjo would change mind in the face of evidence proving the humankind is not effecting climate negatively. Whilst none is forthcoming, the environment around me in my life is evidently changing. The changes I have witnessed in my life time, don't seem positive.

As religion has become redundant and irrational since Darwin's theory of evolution, climate change and environmental destruction denial in the face of evidence, is little more than an antiquated blind faith in itself.

Your arguments Banjo and Hasbeen are still based in either refutation of climate science or mockery or both.

Neither of you or bridgejenny, would be able to supply any data proving that we are "not" effecting our climate negatively, because no one is looking at that question.

Because a study to disprove a fait accompli would be preposterous.

In his 1959 Rede Lecture, CP Snow suggested that the Two Cultures of Scientific and Humanities studies were failing to communicate. This has now progressed into a very public and open conflict between those representing scientific conclusions and the socialized perspectives held by those representing humanities

The socialization advocates promote the abandoning of the idea of science as a separate domain of activity and enquiry, they promote that science must be understood not as a means of acquiring objective general truths about the world but simply as another for of social behavior, They further postulate that scientific laws are the product of “consensus” and must be understood in terms of the prejudices, social pressures and power relations that result in the emergence of consensus and not in terms of advances in understanding, in logical consistency or correspondence with external reality.

Now where have we heard that before?

It is hard to imagine any more monumental example of the socialization of science than that of AGW. By thrusting one of the most complex scientific debates imaginable into the public domain we have seen the proselityzation of pseudo-science (socialized science) adopted by hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of members of the public. So powerful is this adoption of someone else’s opinion that the level of self indoctrination has taken on religious fervor for many.

Sorry thinker 2, you may be well educated but sadly not intelligent enough to avoid gullibility.

You’ve be had mate!

Merry Christmas.

So some clown wants to explain skeptics reasoning.

Surely it would be better, & much more challenging to try to understand how warmests can fool themselves with a pile of gobbledygook which has been disproved so many times, it's getting very boring for those who can think, & want to help them.

On the other hand spindoc, it's also possible that vested interests drive the denialist campaigns. Perhaps CP Snow's (whom I am not familiar with) lecture, may have been making a point that was relevant in 1959. But back then information was much more readily available to the man on the street than it is now.

About the subject of gullibility. Is it possible that with more technology comes less information ?.

An example, in the 1960's it was possible to witness real war on television. This helped a person form a true an accurate understanding of such events. The true horror of it informed people, resulting in majority views that were anti-war. Invading someone else's country for any reason was once frowned upon, an absolute last resort. Now we have embedded journalism. Now we have video games depicting glorified mass destruction. Now we decide how we will do it (invade), not will or won't we.

Gullibility would have to be on the increase spindoc, if that is the point your making, but media driven populist viewpoints such as climate change denial brought to us by vested interests on TV etc, do not represent truth or news either, and when one lacks education from being insulated from truth throughout your lives as the young have lived today, it must be hard to understand the concept of gullibility, let alone spell it without a spell checker.

I personally, would never caste aspersions on another person's intelligence as a debating point spincoc, nor wish the lofty mandate of being a person required to make judgement on the intellect of another, but I would profess to a view, "that as time goes on people will become less informed, be less educated, be less exposed to reality, be more exposed to propaganda and spin, and with that be more susceptible to gullibility".

I can only observe this process spindoc and speak out about it, because it is the young that will live the consequences of it.

Anthonyve, you write in reply to Hasbeen, Tuesday, 20 December, the usual list of authorities of climate science and find it impossible to contemplate that they may all be working with a common purpose.

You write - "One[sic] the one hand we have your assertion that climate scientists around the world, NASA, the militaries of all the developed countries, (including the US Joint Chiefs), all the world's meteorological Societies, The CSIRO, The chief scientists of all the worlds's[sic] developed countries, the world's leading universities - all of these folk are engaged in this collosal[sic] deceipt[sic]."

Has it not occurred to you Anthonyve, that the agencies of this often flaunted list have mostly a common denominator?

All these bodies are government agencies or are government funded. Do you not see that?

They are not free agents to do as they wish. They are given directives by delegates of governments to carry out certain functions and to deliver results, which are scrutinised by those governments. Governments in return recognise faithful servants and reward them appropriately with laurels, promotions and remuneration. Government authorities and agencies tend to provide governments with what they want.

In particular, military authorities such as the US Joint Chiefs are required to do exactly as they are directed. They must carry out the instructions of their masters by decree of legislation. To not do so is called mutiny. They certainly can't run off and do what they like. They do what they're told to do and nothing else.

When these factors are taken into consideration, what you are left with is government authority, who, as it turns out, are the very ones eager to raise new tax regimes, new trade-able commodities and create global power structures.

Doesn't this ring any alarm bells for you Anthonyve?

No?

Perhaps that's an example of Thinker's gullibility?