“ello monsieur Poirot, I zee you haf’ not got zee answeers to zee questions. Perhaps you could ask zee ozzer warmers to ‘elp you non?

On zee ozzer ‘and, perhaps zey ‘have zee same problem as you. There are perhaps no links for zeeze questions.

You have never addressed these questions and we suspect you never will. Perhaps you could instead supply a piece of spontaneous humor, ad hominine or bypass response? Anything to avoid your response to these questions. Reality is such a bitch.

A logical fallacy, Barry Spinks - but typical.

What you are nailing is the policy makers, the economists and the processes of the UNFCCC.

What you are not nailing is the science, despite your inane and childish arguments to the contrary.

A world-wide conspiracy Barry?

As to your last comment - about time you got out of the Menzies House kindergarten.

Yes qanda, but can you answer the questions?

If your science is not good enough for the policy makers, why should it be good enough for us?

Calling the questions “logical fallacy” is just another tactic for avoiding the questions. You cannot, you will not and you are incapable of responding to the reality. Your failure to refute that reality is noted.

The global infrastructure that once supported your view is gone, what does that say about your science?

Without your pseudo-science you, like the rest of the warmertariat, can only duck, weave and avoid.

The questions were 1 through 5, and your answers are?

qanda - Scientists mostly follows the orders of the master or whoever pays the money just as public servants do, if the masters do not get the answers they want they will moreover LIE and say they got the answers. (remember WMD in Iraq)

The scientists already admitted to falsifying data in the leaked emails,
now you still want to trust them.

spindoc,

I see you are impatient for me to reply to you...(I do have a life outside of posting on OLO:)

Regarding your final paragraph where you highlight the myriad spurious FOI requests and sundry litigation as if they were some sort of game changer.

On the contrary, they are nothing more than funded denialist strategy - an abuse of process.

I can see why your ilk would hold them up as a trump card.

Once more, they are not about the science - they are about intimidation and silencing.

As Michael Mann knows all too well:

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/11/07/first-they-came-for-the-climatologists/

"...it's about power and intimidation and a national strategy by Koch financed right wing "think-tanks" to turn the Freedom of Information act...into a new tool of surveillance and oppression, to silence free speech and curtail thought at academic institutions across the country."

"The latest technique used by conservatives to silence liberal academics is to demand copies of their e-mails and other documents..."

"...We think all of this will have a chilling effect on academic freedom. We've never seen FOIA requests used like this before."

That's all denialists can do....abuse the process by foul means.

It's all they've got, because they sure as hell DON'T HAVE THE SCIENCE.

(Sorry, and I know you spent some time composing your posts, but I find denialist spiel utterly despicable - especially when it constructs a FOI snowman amidst a blizzard of logical fallacy)

Ok Barry, some pre-schoolers need to be spoon fed.

1. "What are the international regulatory and governance processes now that Kyoto has lapsed?"

Actually, it hasn’t – so there's your first lie, I mean spin-doctored-assertion.

On 8 December 2012, at the end of the 2012 UNFCCC Conference, an agreement was reached to extend the Protocol to 2020 and set a date of 2015 for the development of a successor document, to be implemented from 2020.

You could have looked it up yourself Barry, but no, you just want to demonstrate how childish and churlish you are - well done.

2. "Why have the international emissions trading markets collapsed?"

The question should be directed to politicians, policy makers or economists – but you could start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading#Market-based_and_least-cost

3. "Why has the renewable energy market collapsed internationally?"

You persist in chasing tails Barry, perhaps you should sniff here instead:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Re_investment_2007-2017.jpg

Detailed more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_commercialization

4. "Why are all the key global “scientific” advisers to government’s trying so hard to keep their science secret from the public?"

They’re not and I find it intriguing why conspiracy theorists like yourself (and other extreme right fruitloops) want to discredit science – but there you are, in all your glory.

5. "If the science is so good, why can’t it convince the international infrastructure that was created to support it in the first place?"

Getting 193 member states and governments of all political persuasions to agree on anything is a big task, Barry – it is not easy.

However, I tend to put it down to the non-progressive ‘tea-party-esque’ business as usual types - obfuscating, denying and delaying as they always tend to do, but that is only my opinion.

.
..
.

PhilipS

You obviously don’t understand how science works.

Your comment is really not worth responding to except for the fact that the 'war against Weapons of Mass Destruction' cost many people their lives, many more were/are injured and traumatised, and it cost trillions of dollars – a debt that our current world leaders are having to deal with, some more so than others.