Here's a good case in point - on cognitive dissonance:

http://www.desmogblog.com/george-will-and-cognitive-dissonance

Mr Kelley says: “An awful lot of your science is predicated on assumptions that suit your argument.”

Poirot,

Apparently you can’t call someone on OLO a liar – but you can say they are telling porkies (as Geoffrey has done).
Does that make those that tell porkies a porker? Never mind.

Anyway, Geoffrey’s above assertion demonstrates quite clearly he’s neither a “trained scientist” nor a real “environmental physiologist” – he’s a fake sceptic at best, a lousy sceptic at worst.

Have you noticed Mr Kelley expects ‘the other side’ (as if science has sides) to produce answers, data, references and so forth – but gives scant regard to providing the same himself?

Moreover, when he is given precise references in answer to 'his questions' he does not acknowledge them? Indeed, he often repeats the same old guff or changes the goal posts (now on to OHC I see).

Yep, Geoffrey shoots from the hip and makes stuff up he can’t substantiate – typical from the anti-science brigade.

Yep, Mr Geoffrey Kelley not only shows complete disdain and disrespect to real science (and "girls" in general) but also to the perfunctories of OLO in particular - by hijacking this thread.

One could ask, why doesn’t Mr Kelley start his own thread?

I agree, if we want a healthier and more wholesome information environment then we need “naming and shaming” of people (like Mr Geoffrey Kelley from Mount Eliza) who go out of their way to mislead and distort ‘climate science’ through their own base ignorance and political bias.

I would find it repugnant to do to dentistry what he is doing to ‘climate science’ - the actions of a simple minded ideologue.

Perhaps we should just not feed the troll.

qanda,

Yes...it's telling that a few posts back that you went to considerable trouble to explain and to list references - and for that Geoffrey's response has been precisely "zilch".

As you say, it's all in the tactics, which are as numerous as they are fleeting (If one is not working, they switch to another).

I've often noted cohenite, whose tactic is to attempt to argue the science (although he's not a scientist) and who, upon finding his "science" rebutted, launches straight into abuse, calling his opponents idiots and liars.

The more I see fake skeptics in action, the more I'm convinced that the "psychology of denial" should be the main area of address.

qanda,

Looks like our "Arjay" is at it again....

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5622

Apparently "Sustainability is the catch phrase to make us feel guilty about our success. Satellite evidence demonstrates that there has been no increase in temps since 1997...."

P.S. I know it's just more of the same, but we wuz talking about RJ and his particular brand of denialism only yesterday : )

Geoffrey asks:

"...in the end what can we do to reverse the AGW component?"

Not much if we can't even get hearings up and running.

Case in point: http://inagist.com/all/299207653660426241/

More road (GOP) blocks : (

Ok Poirot,thanks for the links.

Perhaps it's time for you to generate a new thread on the issue?

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/281439-house-gop-blocks-dem-push-for-climate-science-hearings#ixzz2K8kbFBtr

I would be astonished :) if the usual suspects don't respond as per usual. However, I would be most interested to see the response from other viewers/visitors.

More generally, I would like to see how Australia is responding to adapting to climate change - particularly in light of the latest floods, fires and extreme weather (the new norm?).

I know some insurance companies, some regulatory authorities/bureaucrats/governments, and some businesses are stirring into action - bout time I say.

You often hear people say we need to adapt. Thing is, adaptation doesn't happen over night (it will take decades) and it will cost a lot of money. The longer we deny and delay, the more expensive it will be (in more ways than just dollar terms).

We have to start somewhere, sometime - 20 years ago anywhere in Oz would have been good.