The climate change debate has now polarized public opinion to the extent that abuse and vilification between groups is now rife and escalating. This applies to our politicians, industrial opportunists, academia, media, NGO’s, economists, blog sites, research organizations, financiers, celebrities and scientists.

Does our nation and all the people and institutions it comprises deserve this level of vexation and angst? Do we have better, more rewarding and joyous things to do with our lives?

Does this impasse need to continue to consume us emotionally, politically and economically or are we capable acting like we exist in the third millennia?

If our children were relentlessly squabbling and wrecking family harmony with no resolution in sight, would we as parents step in with an adult resolution? Yes, of course we would and the first step would always be to start dialogue.

Since the warring parties cannot convince each other, perhaps it is time to do something adult for our nation and sort out the differences?

The scientists at NIPCC and the IPCC have now drawn opposing conclusions from the same body of published scientific research. Interestingly these two groups don’t resort to abuse of each other, but the rest of the various advocacy groups certainly do! How curious.

Could a Royal Commission into human induced climate change draw out the issues of difference and offer reconciliation?

Are there other alternatives? What might they be? What might the Commissions TOR include?

Since it is clear that reconciliation by the parties themselves has proved impossible, it is hoped that rather than “feed the beast” with more of our favorite pro’s and con’s, it must be possible for us to focus on potential resolutions, to clear the decks of abuse, name calling, shooting each others messengers and denigrating contrary scientific opinions.

Most of all, are we capable of achieving this without the relentless “link wars” that focus only on the causes of our differences rather than the effects and any solutions?

Surely the thinking adults on OLO are up for a real debate on potential solutions rather than replays of the causes?

spindoc,

"The scientists at NIPCC and the IPCC have now drawn opposing conclusions from the same body of published scientific research..."

The only point that needs to be clarified is that you appear to be lending the NIPCC scientific credibility by referring to it as somehow in the same league as the IPCC.

http://theconversation.com/adversaries-zombies-and-nipcc-climate-pseudoscience-17378

"What is the NIPCC? Is it just like the IPCC, but with an “N”?

Well, no. The NIPCC is a group of climate change “sceptics”, bankrolled by the libertarian Heartland Institute to promote doubt about climate change. This suits the Heartland Institute’s backers, including fossil fuel companies and those ideologically opposed to government regulation.

The NIPCC promotes doubt via thousand-page reports, the latest of which landed with a dull thud last week. These tomes try to mimic the scientific reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), right down to the acronym. However, unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC reports are works of partisan pseudoscience."

Next.....

Throughout history, versions of the false flag attack have been used successfully by governments in order to direct the force of the people toward whatever end the ruling class may be seeking.

At times, that end may be war, or it may be the curtailing of domestic civil liberties and basic human rights. In others, it is an economic agenda.

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/11/11-signs-of-false-flag.html

indeed, false flags are themselves capable of taking on a wide variety of forms – domestic or foreign, small or large, economic or political, and many other designations that can often blur into one another.

Each may serve a specific purpose and each may be adjusted and tailored for that specific purpose as societal conditions require.

this will kill you..
long before global warming..ever will
http://bit.ly/1hSCRsi
[In an extremely unusual joint interview with Israel’s Channel 2, a patently bitter secretary of state asks why Israel keeps taking Palestinian land, and why the Israeli public doesn’t seem to care about it.]

Poirot,

<<The NIPCC ...These tomes try to mimic the scientific reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), right down to the acronym.

I'll bet you haven't read the NIPCC report cover to cover --as that comment would imply-- but rather, lifted that comment as gospel holus -bolus from on one of your leftwing rags.

<<However, unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC reports are works of partisan pseudoscience.">>

ii) ROFL you mean to say the IPCC has neeeeeeeeeever sought to suppress/discredit unfavorable finds/comment?

FFS Spindoc, with locked-in syndrome like that exhibited above by the little froggie detective how on earth can you ever have a meeting of minds(and minds may be a poor choice)?

Poirot,

I thought I’d posed the following;

“ it must be possible for us to focus on potential resolutions, to clear the decks of abuse, name calling, shooting each others messengers and denigrating contrary scientific opinions.”

“are we capable of achieving this without the relentless “link wars” that focus only on the causes of our differences rather than the effects and any solutions?”

If you won’t enter the debate as an adult, why try to kill off the thread and spoil it for everyone else by slagging off contrary opinion and diverting the thread?

You have already told us you only come back to OLO to “bait” the opposition, I really don’t understand why you’ve become such an infantile spoiler?

SPQR, yes it is frustrating. There must be something terrifying about debate that acts as an intellectual inhibitor. Funny that those with the most to defend have nothing to add.

spindoc,

"If you won’t enter the debate as an adult, why try to kill off the thread and spoil it for everyone else by slagging off contrary opinion and diverting the thread?

You have already told us you only come back to OLO to “bait” the opposition, I really don’t understand why you’ve become such an infantile spoiler?"

I come here to "reply" to the opposition.

How is pointing out that the NIPCC is a front group for Heartland diverting the thread?

You deliberately inserted the "false premise" that the NIPCC is somehow on an equal scientific footing with the IPCC.

I was merely informing readers of that false premise.

What's more interesting is that you claim I'm being an "infantile spoiler" because I call you out on a misleading inference.

Premising an argument on global warming by citing a group backed by Heartland has little scientific credibility.

And, finally, let's face it...anyone with any real scientific credibility is quickly abused and chased away from OLO by "skeptics".

Without recourse to links from credible scientific research, it all boils down to amateur partisan "opinion" - and that is not going to solve anything.

Spindoc,
I think in the case of Oz and many other places good old human nature is the prime problem, the problem of climate change is not apparent, not in your face so it becomes an academic , albeit heated, discussion.
I guess if we had the pollution like that being experienced in some Chinese cities there would be an outcry in Oz to do something about it.
Where I live the climate appears to be cooling if anything, a sea breeze blows most of the time and there is no obvious pollution. It is only what I read that advises me of imminent doom and gloom or the opposite, I cannot draw on my own experience in such matters.
I lean toward the scientific view that the climate is changing but like many have reservations as to the whys and wherefores.
For now I can only follow the debate, hopefully it will become more rational over time.
SD

Spindoc at times we have displayed some mutual respect for each other.
You can do better than this trash.
Are you ghost writing for Cory the right wing nut?
Gee even you and your extremists temporarily in control must know the world is moving in the opposite direction.
This thread should be on display in every home.
Let voters never forget the many Trojan horses your mob bought with them.
It is within reasonable thinkers sight, the fact Abbott may yet be replaced mid term by Turnbull, God help Labor if that takes place.
But your team is off to a bad start in racing terms have turned around in the barrier and are racing in the wrong direction.

its the secrecy/spin..that gets really nasty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7VD4CLUrXA

a good lie..needs some truth/lots of feaR AND NO TIME TO THINK

THE THING..IS FOLLOW THE MONEY
44 CENTS [OR MORE]..FEED IN TARIFF..ONLY MEANS THE PLAN..IS LOG-TERM..THAT EVEN THEY WILL IN TIME BE PAYING MORE THAN THAT..

fear is great..to feed into guilt
then the big payoff...your shout*

A new report
has been released from the
Australian Centre for Independent Journalism's
Wendy Bacon entitled "Sceptical Climate."

The report examined 10 newspapers across 3 month periods
in 20111 and 2012. All in all the study looked at more that
600 articles dealing with cliamte science.
Asound one third were sceptical or critical of the consensus
scientific position on anthropogenic global warming.

The Murdoch tabloids were even more pronouced.
73 per cent of the words in climate-related articles in
The Daily Telegraph were devoted to sceptical positions and
in the Herald Sun it was 81 percent.

Much of this can be explained by the dominant role of
conservative anti-science columnists (like Andrew Bolt) who
play a particularly harmful role in this debate.

This media skew along with the popularity and success of the
Coalition's anti-carbon tax campaign helps to explain the
way the public's been influenced in this debate and it also
explains the low-level of scrutiny that has been applied
to what's being esposed both in discussion and policy.

The international coverage of
climate change is so very different from the Australian
coverage. The international coverage being more detailed,
deeper, and better informed by the science.
There's less attention given overseas to scientifically dubious
claims and politically motivated false balance.
CNN, the BBC, and even Time magazine ridicule the Coalition's
climate scepticism.

Watching John Hewson on The Drum recently was interesting.
He found John Howard's recent speech to a group of climate
sceptics in London, "embarrassing," to say the least.
However, as one poster reminded people, Why be surprised?
John Howard was the man who told us that, "Saddam had weapons
of mass destruction that would kill us all, that the Iraqi
people would embrace us with open arms and we'll make it a
better place, that money spent on infrastructure is wasted
money, that billions spent on obsolete refurbished weapons
from the Vietnam war bought from the US is a cracking deal and
that the "free" trade deal with the US is good for us..."

Australia has been poorly served by domestic coverage of
climate science and policy.

Hi Folks,

My time on OLO has taught me that after taxes and death only two other things are certain:
1) If a site/group/researcher bills themselves as "independent" they are usually pretty far left,and
2) If Lexi/Foxy links us to anything it is usually on the left side of Pol Pot.

And so we have Foxy's latest:
<< A new report ...[from]the Australian Centre for Independent Journalism's Wendy Bacon>>

But when we visit (independent) Wendy's sites what do you find:

" Wendy Bacon, journalist and activist...[I'm]Voting Green because I’m a journalist – and all the other reasons"
http://www.wendybacon.com/investigations/

And if you read some of her other reports they read like New Matilda ...and surprise, surprise she writes for New Matilda!

ROFL

Nice try Foxy!

Poirot/Foxy we do not waste our time here in this thread.
Just look around and see the true extremism mixed with the true failure to understand.
I can take criticism, and read the critics of climate change ,those who bother to put a case not those who link their views to the extremes in politics.
It is worth noting they walk all over the greens on this subject.
But never tell us it is their politics that forms these extremist views on this subject.
Truth will out and even the more moderate side of Liberalism will once back in control, join in the fight to cut emissions.

Dear SPQR,

How about attacking the arguments instead of
the person.

Lexi,

Your source uses the moniker "independent" but clearly shows herself to have a hardline agenda.

I do not think we could reasonably consider her, or anyone she endorsed,as an impartial arbitrator as to what comments/reports about AGW were negative or positive.

Dear SPQR,

Wendy bacon presented a report that examined 10 newspapers
across two 3 month periods in 2011 and 2012. The study looked
at more than 600 articles dealing with climate science.
And around a third were sceptical or critical of the consensus
science position on anthropogenic global warming.
The Murdoch tabloids the skew was even more pronouced as stated
earlier. 73 percent of the words in climate related articles
in The Daily Telegraph were devoted to sceptical positions.
In the Herald Sun it was 81 percent.

These facts have nothing to do with Wendy Bacon's political
or personal opinions on the subject. And attacking her
does not change the facts presented. She wasn't giving an
opinion - she was presenting data collected and as such
should be acceptable. There is a difference between that and
when she does express an opinion. I choose the report, which
I think is a valid one because it shows just how poorly
Australians have been served by domestic coverage of
climate science in this country and that this can explain
the domiant role that newspapers play (and conservative
anti-science columnists like Andrew Bolt) in particularly
harmful roles in this debate.

These facts don't change - but they do influence many people.

Foxy,

Never mind SPQR's superficial commentary.

It appears his greatest contributions to debate on this forum are:

"ROFL"

and

"Lol!"

(Lightweight....)

Foxy,

Not so.

Wendy is not a disinterested observer, she has written for New Matilda (a site with a very strong left bias, and very, very selective about who is allowed to contribute) and she styles herself an "activist".

She could not help but view things through the lens of her own beliefs and agendas. What she, and those she endorses, sees as negative or positive is highly likely to be identified differently by others.

It is telling that you like to slur (and discredit) the Murdoch press or Andrew Bolt ...or dare we recall your gem about Alan Jones!, but cannot see it from the other side!

Once again the extremely lost and the extremes join hands to lash out at Science.
Having given it much thought it is my view anti climate change activism is all crap.

You are right Belly.
I have always believed in climate change, but was only recently convinced that humans directly affected climate change.

Given that SPQR and his other anti-science friends on this site are so against this concept, I am even more convinced!

Abbott told us, and he probably still feels, that climate change is 'cr#p'.
He also told us he would stop the boats and get tough on the Indonesians.
All politicians lie...

Dear SPQR,

Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt do not support any of their
opinions with facts, therefore they can't be
taken seriously or given much credit.

However
in the case of Wendy Bacon - she in her report
did not cite her opinion but based the report on
facts that examined 10 newspapers across two
3 month periods in 2011 and 2012. The facts stand.
And facts are what we're dealing with here.

People
who deal with slogans only, should not expect to be
taken seriously. It's not surprising therefore that
CNN, the BBC, and Time magazine ridicule the Coalition's
climate scepticism - and their coverage of climate
change is simply very different from Australian
coverage - Mr Bolt and Mr Jones are less than credible.
And that's not being biased - that's stating the facts.
I'd be happy to be proven wrong - but not thus far.

Hi Foxy,

<<Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt do not support any of their opinions with facts>>
If you ever cared to check you would find that Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt do generally support their views with evidence. You might not agree with their take on the evidence, I often don't, but it's far from the truth to say: "[they] do not support any of their opinions".
And it's even further from the truth to say that, that is the reason you don't like them!

<<Wendy Bacon ...did not cite her opinion but based the report on facts that examined 10 newspapers across two 3 month periods in 2011 and 2012>>
Wendy or her confederates simply looked at the papers and formed an opinion as to whether they were negative or positive -- in view of her political leanings & stated agendas those assessments must be suspect.

<<It's not surprising therefore that CNN, the BBC, and Time magazine ridicule the Coalition's climate scepticism - and their coverage of climate change is simply very different from Australian coverage>>
The image you are trying to paint is that poor little Oz & the dastardly coalition are the odd ones out.The reality is that climate scepticism is much more pronounced in "Anglo-saxon" countries generally than elsewhere.A fact the ABC Science Show has whined about a number of times.
See here: <<Poles Apart: the international reporting of climate scepticism concludes that climate scepticism is largely an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon, found most frequently in the US and British newspapers>>
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/ipcc-report3a-newspaperse28099-sober-assessment-of-the-scie/4999776

Now you may ask why that may be the case? --well, you'd probably never ask that, but others might ask that question.And I'll suggest that it might just have a lot to do with it being the case that under any of the IPCC climate change mitigation or compensation initiatives it will be the "Anglo-saxon" countries who will footing the bill--and they are talking about trillion$$$$$ anyone who doesn't challenge the basis for the such a charge before signing off on it needs to have their head examined.

When I am seeking information on climate change I do not seek the opinions of people such as Bolt, Jones and Bacon et al.
I try to find sources and people with no axe to grind, no political leanings.
Everything changes as does climate, take out the egos and the politics and we may have a chance of finding out exactly what is happening to the climate and what we can do about it, if anything.
There is every chance we can do little and will just have to take what is served up to us, if not us, our children.
Maybe our children will do a better job than us of managing the planet, we certainly have little to be proud of.

SD

Craig Isherwood on Green Fascism

Citizens Electoral Council leader Craig Isherwood has today given a half-hour interview to LPAC-TV in the U.S., on the history of the British Crown’s green fascism, and the CEC’s political fight in Australia to defeat the green agenda.

Click here to view this interview.
http://larouchepac.com/node/26342

"If you ever cared to check you would find that Alan Jones and Andrew Bolt do generally support their views with evidence. You might not agree with their take on the evidence, I often don't, but it's far from the truth to say: "[they] do not support any of their opinions"."

Well, that's a good one!

We are talking about science when dealing with climate.

Jones and Bolt blather partisan contrarian opinion to the gullible.

They don't do empirical "evidence" full stop.

So I'll say they do not support their opinion with anything resembling evidence....they support their opinion with junk-science claptrap.

Cheers

@Outed non-scientist Poirot,

<<Jones and Bolt ... don't do empirical "evidence" full stop>>

Jones and Bolt are probably on a par with you when it comes to properly referencing "empirical evidence" ...

However, they are a good league or two ahead of you when it comes to understanding its implications.

Cheers

Suseonline/Foxy/Poirot and those who like myself find it impossible not to believe in the science and too the world wide rash of biggest ever hottest ever ext.
Know history will judge us all,and laugh at some.
Know too we should never ignore this thread and those that needle us and chuckle *are not representative of the Liberal party*
Only one vote put Abbott there, and fear at that time of the red neck Blue Heeler leaving its kennel, the National party saying it wanted to vote separately on this issue, saw that one vote go to theright of sanity!
Be assured like that all time worst storm rampaging in our north a storm of public demand for action against global warming will drive the Liberals backto a sane policy on global warming.

SPQR,

"@Outed non-scientist Poirot,"

Most amusing.

Everybody knows that Poirot is a retired Belgian detective with a mincing gait and magnificent moustaches....

But he uses "his little grey cells" - which in turn direct him to the "large body" of climate scientists and their findings.

"Jones and Bolt are probably on a par with you when it comes to properly referencing "empirical evidence" ..."

Ho, ho...yes, dear, straight from the NIPCC & Affiliates...Heartland, Watts, etc

"However, they are a good league or two ahead of you when it comes to understanding its implications."

I'm sure they understand the "implications" of disseminating junk-science to a gullible audience....after all, it got a denier govt elected.

I started this thread by pointing out that since we cannot reconcile the two opposing perspectives on CAGW, which is abundantly clear from the responses to this thread, is it time to consider what reconciliation processes might be invoked.

I asked, <<Could a Royal Commission into human induced climate change draw out the issues of difference and offer reconciliation?

Are there other alternatives? What might they be? What might the Commissions TOR include? >>

Instead the question has been ducked and again diverted back to the same old vexatious defense/selling of entrenched positions. It’s not about getting back to the argument, it is about discussing potential solutions.

How might the two sides be brought together?

spindoc,

Yes, I appreciate the reason behind you starting this thread.

You wished to begin with a level playing field - one which scientifically legitimises the contrarian viewpont.

I brought up the fact that the NIPCC has no legitimacy as a scientific entity and is a front group for Heartland - which in turn is a front group for big oil, big business and vested interests...certainly nothing of the standing or scientific veracity of the IPCC.

Its propaganda rests on the premise that tens of thousands of scientists, their findings and peer-reviewed literature are all part of a gigantic organised fraud and conspiracy.

For that, you berated me and informed me I was a "infantile spoiler".

What if I was to defend the World Health Organisation against the anti-vaccination mob - would you berate me for that also?

Because it's a similar scenario.

The two sides can't be "brought together" under such circumstances.

I am one of those with some scientific knowledge who has given up on posting on OLO. However I do occasionally check it out, and today I can't resist an example of why I have given up.

SPQR quoted <<Wendy Bacon ...did not cite her opinion but based the report on facts that examined 10 newspapers across two 3 month periods in 2011 and 2012>>, then replied: "Wendy or her confederates simply looked at the papers and formed an opinion as to whether they were negative or positive -- in view of her political leanings & stated agendas those assessments must be suspect."

There may be a left/right association with support/scepticism of global warming (there's some research to support this); but do Wendy Bacon's 'left-wing' political leanings actually mean that she cannot tell the difference between support/scepticism of AGW? Most articles in global warming are very explicitly one or the other.

Perhaps SPQR means that any statement by anyone with 'left wing' views is suspect. 'The sky is blue' - naw, in view of her political leanings this statement is suspect. An article writer says 'I am sceptical about AGW', or 'warmist scientists bias analysis' but if Bacon includes this in the count of sceptical articles, this is suspect because she is left-wing?

Many posters on OLO have a similar logic. Disagree with what someone posts and jump to a conclusion as to the political leanings of the poster. If they don't think the same, they must by definition be of an opposing politic and therefore they must be wrong on everything (even the ability to tell whether an article is pro/sceptical). Then, of course, feel free to attack them for their misguided and suspect political leanings (or personally) rather than the content of their statements.

What is left or right anyway? I remember a German scientist who migrated to Australia: 'In Germany my views were middle-of-the road, here I'm regarded as an extreme left-winger!'

The very fact that the debate is characterised by "abuse and vilification" shows that the so-called science is not.

Real scientists don't answer a challenge to their data or algorithms by hiding them and screaming "denialist", as if the issue were one of faith. Nor do they appeal to a head-count, to absent authority, or to circular assumptions.

Yet take away all these fallacies, and what is left of the warmist argument? Nothing.

For example, evolutionary scientists faced, and still face, abuse and vilification, but they don't answer back in like coin. They just continue to produce data and reason supporting their case.

But Poirot's utterly circular thinking is just typical of the whole shemozzle. She rejects data and argument *because* they are critical of the orthodoxy! Unbelievable. And of course totally unscientific.

At no stage do the warmists ever join issue with the vexed question of vested interests in government funding. They just persist in treating it as an affront to their dignity, an absurdity, to mention it. Yet unless that variable can be controlled for, obviously there will be no end to the debate, even after the warmists have been proved decisively wrong, for the simple reason that they continue to make money from it!

So it's perfectly appropriate of the skeptics to mock and revile the warmists as religious zealots and corrupt.

The solution is not to refer the question to a royal commision or any other government-sponsored decision-making process.

It's to simply stop government funding for the whole exercise. Then we'll see whether the Poirots of the world really want to send the prime minister with 114-man delegations, including hairdressers and chefs, to corrupt gabfests on the other side of the world.

The warmists are just the modern-day version of the corrupt aristocracy before the French revolution.

OK Poirot,

You say, << The two sides can't be "brought together" under such circumstances. >>

So, under what circumstances do you think the two sides could be brought together?

How about this for a suggestion?

A commission of enquiry of yet to be determined composition and terms of reference. Held in Australia with invitations to participate to any nominee from anywhere in the world from any organization.

(Before someone tables cost as an objection, the quest for de-carbonization has already sucked the equivalent of $US 1 Trillion out of the EU economy. Even without our own CO2 Tax the LNP Direct Action proposes $2.5 bn.)

Six judges sit to evaluate the evidence from both sides. Each side gets to elect a panel of say ten permanent experts. In addition, each panel can call upon further expert witnesses as required.

All claims, forecasts, models, scientific evidence and expert opinion to be considered from all sides by the judges on its legal/evidentiary and substantiated merits.

The whole of the UN IPCC could be represented on one panel if you like, and all the scientists making up the consensus can be available to the commission as additional expert witnesses, or visa versa, or a mix as preferred.

Each panel gets the right to challenge nominees for the opposing panel and expert witnesses. The grounds might be qualifications, experience or relevance. We could even waive “conflict of interest” issues?

Public submissions could be invited, outstanding questions or issues could be nominated and perhaps the most frequently asked public questions could be addressed with the official responses being published in the judicial findings?

As posed in my original article, << Could a Royal Commission into human induced climate change draw out the issues of difference and offer reconciliation? Are there other alternatives? What might they be? What might the Commissions TOR include? >>

Cossomby
"I am one of those with some scientific knowledge..."

Then you will know that scientific knowledge cannot be based on logical fallacies, and that it is a logical fallacy to reason by groupthink, by appeal to absent authority, by assuming what is in issue, by asserting values from facts, by asserting that mere power decides questions of fact or ethics, and that subjective values can be objectively measured.

Therefore you must admit that the warmists have no case either in science or policy, because if you don't, you're affirming fallacies in issue, which proves you have no scientific knowledge as to what is in issue.

The problem is precisely that the warmists' case has been demolished over and over and over again, and its supporters have nothing but to keep squarking about how an entire industry of government-funded vested interest cannot possibly be questioned. That's it. That's their entire "scientific" argument. It's absurdly stupid and corrupt.

Poirot
"The two sides can't be "brought together" under such circumstances."

So people should be shot for not agreeing to fund the warmists? Because that's what your argument amounts to.

If they can't be brought together, then why does that automatically decide the issue in favour of government action on the basis of government-funded policy? As we have just demonstrated in threads where you are critical of the government, you don't even accept your own argument.

So at least we're agreed that your argument is hypocritical nonsense!

spindoc
The notion that the government is our "parent" is precisely what caused this empire of fraud and abuse in the first place.

Poirot and the warmists will agree to fund all the climate science and the climate junkets and the climate policies.

Won't they? Oh! So it turns out it's all about the money, and they're hypocrites and parasites after all!

JKJ,

"Real scientists don't answer a challenge to their data or algorithms by hiding them and screaming "denialist", as if the issue were one of faith. Nor do they appeal to a head-count, to absent authority, or to circular assumptions."

Yes!

But we're debating this on a non-scientific forum.

Remember scientists don't come here because people who aren't scientists abuse them.

Whatever you think of "the science", the question is taken up by government and voted on by ordinary people.

I know you don't agree with "government", JKJ, but that's the system in place.

So ordinary people vote for governments who implement their agenda.

If ordinary people are being fed junk-scientific conclusions as somehow representative of scientific integrity and peer-reviewed empirical evidence, then we have a situation where they are voting with a blindfold on.

Very boring and so last week to pull out the "religious zealot" take.

It's a not-very-clever, now hackneyed, cliché invented by those who support the dissemination of junk-science in place of "real science" from "real scientists".

Can't you think of anything original?

(Now I'll eagerly await your tried and true "come back" - something along the lines of your usual to Poirot:

" You obviously agree with shooting people in order to force them to submit to funding any and every government activity against their will...."

Lol!.... with bells on!

JKJ,

"So people should be shot for not agreeing to fund the warmists? Because that's what your argument amounts to."

Well that's given me my belly laugh of the morning!

You actually beat me to it!

(Not that you're predictable or anything:)

.......

spindoc,

Will get back to you a little later when time allows.

Jardine: Thank you for demonstrating my point.

I addressed the issue of posters assuming that others are left-wing and therefore discounting what they say.

I did not comment on the merits or otherwise of AGW or on the science or the politics. Indeed from my post you could not tell what my views are on AGW. I have posted on the subject before but I should be upfront and admit that I 'debate' in the classical debating-society sense - that is, I tend to post a challenge to the on-going trend of any topic regardless of my own personal views. (I have suggested in the past that everyone should try arguing the opposite case to what they 'believe' -a useful technique to counter the normal tendency towards bias confirmation).

So you have done exactly what I criticised - jumping to conclusions as to other people's views, assuming they differ from yours and therefore criticising them for their idiocy (eg 'you're affirming fallacies in issue, which proves you have no scientific knowledge'), then going on to a soapbox declaration.

I am a sceptic. But for me this means that I am also sceptical of sceptics, including myself. I am always questioning my ideas and work: why do I think that? What are my biases?

I think you should maybe do so too. Why are you so certain that scientists are 'an entire industry of government-funded vested interest'? What are you biases?

spindoc,

I'm having trouble with your "experts from both sides" equation.

We know there is overwhelming consensus in published "peer-reviewed" literature by scientists.

(Disregarding for the moment that "skeptics" have taken to challenging both peer-review" and the term "consensus" as part of their ongoing strategy to discredit a tried and true system)

"Peer-review" is the stable "commission of enquiry" which has delivered mankind its startling scientific advancement since the Enlightenment.

Again, your suggestion posits a level playing field between the scientists represented by the IPCC and others funded by and promoting fossil fuel/consumer interests.

I actually hadn't heard of Heartland re AGW until the mention above. So I googled it. This extract is from Wikipedia (OK I'm sceptical of that too, but references are given).

May 2012 billboard campaign

On May 4, 2012, the institute launched a digital billboard ad campaign in the Chicago area featuring a photo of Ted Kaczynski, (the "Unabomber" whose mail bombs killed three people and injured 23 others), and asking the question, “I still believe in global warming, do you?”[30] The institute planned for the campaign to feature murderer Charles Manson, communist leader Fidel Castro and perhaps Osama bin Laden, asking the same question. In a statement, the institute justified the billboards saying "the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen."[31] The billboard reportedly "unleashed a social media-fed campaign, including a petition from the advocacy group Forecast the Facts calling on Heartland’s corporate backers to immediately pull their funding," and prompted Rep. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-Wis.), to threaten to cancel his speech at the upcoming Heartland Institute Climate Change Conference.[32] Within 24 hours Heartland canceled the campaign, although its President refused to apologize for it.[nb 2] The advertising campaign led to the loss of substantial corporate funding,[33] the resignation of Institute board members, and the resignation of almost the entire Heartland Washington D.C. office, taking the Institute's biggest project (on insurance) with it.[34] Subsequent to their resignation, the staff of the former Heartland insurance project founded the R Street Institute.[35).

Could a Royal Commission help, do you think?

Poirot,

You seem to have listed lots of reasons “for not doing it” but no reasons for “actually doing it”?

All the points you raised are covered by this,

<< Each panel gets the right to challenge nominees for the opposing panel and expert witnesses. The grounds might be qualifications, experience or relevance. We could even waive “conflict of interest” issues? >>

So how about we solve your objections by adding “Only Peer Reviewed Submissions” and put back the “conflict of interest” caveat that you can use to remove submissions from vested interests?

How does that work for you

Cossomby,

Skepticism aside, poor old Heartland miscalculated terribly with that one....a desperate act which cost them many "donors".

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/09/heartland-institute-donors-lost-unabomber-ad

http://www.livescience.com/20107-heartland-climate-change-billboards.html

Here's an article by Naomi Klein covering the connection between the NIPCC and Heartland, the "climate debate" and more....

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

spindoc,

We don't "need" to do it...unless one is assuming at the outset that thousands upon thousands of scientists are caught up in a massive fraud and conspiracy.

These people do their work, They are trained to be skeptical. Their conclusions are made available for their peers to examine.

As I've mentioned, there is only one premise for touting a Royal Commission or any such investigation - and that is the premise that these thousands of scientist are dishonest and engaging in a sham.

I don't buy that.

just one of the many LIES*

least we forget
Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus'
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming.

After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics.

At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

FOOL ME ONCE..SHAME ON ME
FOOL..ME TWICE..LICE ON YOU*

a pox on both thy houses..[lobbyists and warmists]

ITS THE DAMM LIES..
liars lie..

you who..have been decieved by professional spin
think..why youneed to believe the lie..

[is it that you got the free gifts?
and if...the lie gets revealed..you might feel guilt?

the real..liars dont feel guilt
if the facts speak for themselves..*present the fact..not the modeling bling..if the percentage..drop's..drop.,.the lies that were built on..them

[go figure..only thee truth will do
aand that keeps changing..as the spin gets ever more twisted]

its govt lobbby//wanting nice free govt cash
to give out a few light bulbs..bopught for double retail

or sell a few solar cells or sell govt a few wind turbines or get money for carbon SEQUESTRATION..[then 4 out of 5 expensive subsidized quangos..still go broke]

how many lies..make up.. the fraud

and still the guilt trip dont quit
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php

Cossomby asks: <<do [ANYONES] 'left-wing' political leanings actually mean that [THEY] cannot tell the difference between support/scepticism of AGW? Most articles in global warming are very explicitly>>

Of course not, no more so than a cats gastromical leanings means that it cannot tell the difference between (I'm putting you in cage to guard the birdies food) eat the naught mouse that steals the grain, but --explicitly--DOOOON'T eat the birdie.

And, now, Poirot is lining her up for a brain washing session:
"Here's an article by Naomi Klein covering the connection between the NIPCC ..."

At least now we know the source of her lines --what did I predict at the outset:
"[Poirot] I'll bet you haven't read the NIPCC report cover to cover --as that comment would imply-- but rather, lifted that comment as gospel holus -bolus from on one of your leftwing rags."!

SPQR: you also just demonstrated my point. It's clear you haven't examined your own biases!

Thank god I'm not left wing! Thank god I'm not right-wing! What's the word for someone who thinks both left-wing and right-wing rants are silly.

Roger, over and out - that's my four for today.

Poirot said;
..they support their opinion with junk-science claptrap.

Actually, on the .004 C point that Bolt has made he gave a reference
for it and I followed it back and it is a derivative of IPCC figures.
I suspect that is why when he asks the question, the result is always
a mumbo jumbo response.

Also the 15 year pause has been confirmed as being unexplainable at present.
I am unable to comment on other assertions.
So I think you are in error to make such blanket statements.

Cossomby
I have not alleged you have any view on the science or politics of AGW, and therefore have not demonstrated your point.

I have only argued that, since science cannot fall back to reliance on logical fallacies, therefore you must concede that there is no scientific basis to the warmists' argument for policy since it relies on multiple logical fallacies (and so far as it pretends no policy conclusions, it is irrelevant to any policy discussion obviously).

A classic example is Poirot's argument which is only this: it must be so because the (government-funded) officials ("scientists") say so. But she takes as her only acceptable criterion, government-funded scientist! On the critical question of any interested bias on their part, her response is patent, open-ended and circular credulity. Read what she wrote. Any criticism of their views she dismisses precisely and only because it does not come from that orthodoxy.

This is in fact the entire warmist argument in a nutshell: an appeal to absent authority.

"I am a sceptic. But for me this means that I am also sceptical of sceptics, including myself."

So am I. Unlike the warmists, who merely and endlessly repeat an unfalsifiable circular belief system, I always offer them the opportunity to prove me or them wrong.

There are four questions which no warmist has been able to answer me:
1. demonstrating by *data* and *temperature measurements* (not computer models and authority) that we face catastrophic man-made global warming
2. that the ecological effects would be detrimental on balance, rather than positive, and how they know
3. that government is capable of knowing the benefits of policy versus the counterfactual, and how they know, and
4. how government is presumptively capable of a net beneficial response.

The fact that their entire edifice continues after this complete demolition of their belief system doesn't mean they should be presumed correct as Poirot naively presumes. It means they should be presumed interested and corrupt unless and until anyone can refute these categorical and total disproofs of their argument.

Here you all go again worrying about the wrong problem.
The real problem will eventually render your worries redundant.
And much sooner than you expect.

I do not normally follow OUG's numerous links but I did follow the one
on the 97% through to the Popular Technology web site.
Interesting and it should be examined by someone with the access to
scientific papers and the knowledge to clasify them.
That seems to be the crutch of the matter.

The 97% in favour seems to have been very much discredited.
The 97% is promoted as being fully in favour, no doubts, definately
warming in operation and definately human caused.
However it now seems that there are a variety of opinons varying from
the above through, "Well probably", to "maybe, but not human caused"
that have all been lumpted into the "definate AGW" camp.

I just wonder if this is another "Hockey Stick" moment ?

Poirot,

<< As I've mentioned, there is only one premise for touting a Royal Commission or any such investigation - and that is the premise that these thousands of scientist are dishonest and engaging in a sham. >>

Isn’t that precisely the issue? So what better way to test it.

It’s interesting that you were offered every preference, every option and every advantage as to the composition, rules of engagement, choice of attendees and even a veto, but even that isn’t good enough to warrant testing your mantra, you don’t have the courage of your convictions to even consider testing them.

That tells us much about your beliefs. There is no way you would consider it because you now absolutely know you could not prevail.

I suspect every skeptic on the planet would accept such terms of engagement, even with everything stacked against them. Wonder why the alarmists won’t?

I guess you are now back behind your sandbags and ready to lob more grenades?

Tea break over Poirot, back on your head. Now everyone has your number.

Jardine: Please go back and reread my first post. It was about the assumption that Wendy Bacon's sorting of article in pro-and anti-AGW was suspect because she was left-wing.

Then reread your comment on it: "Then you will know that scientific knowledge cannot be based on logical fallacies, and that it is a logical fallacy to reason by groupthink, by appeal to absent authority, by assuming what is in issue, by asserting values from facts, by asserting that mere power decides questions of fact or ethics, and that subjective values can be objectively measured. Therefore you must admit that the warmists have no case either in science or policy, because if you don't, you're affirming fallacies in issue, which proves you have no scientific knowledge as to what is in issue. The problem is precisely that the warmists' case has been demolished over and over and over again, and its supporters have nothing but to keep squarking about how an entire industry of government-funded vested interest cannot possibly be questioned. That's it. That's their entire "scientific" argument. It's absurdly stupid and corrupt."

You ignored what I actually said, jumped to another line altogether and attacked (tried to intimidate) me by stating that if I didn't agree with you that "warmists have no case either in science or policy" then I was affirming fallacies/ had no scientific knowledge".

Your answer was a non-sequitur. You may have not said outright that I was left-wing but you certainly stated that if I didn't agree with your views I was "affirming fallacies/ had no scientific knowledge".

Re your 4 challenges. I suspect that if I put up a debate that disagreed with some or all, you would just call me a 'warmist' - a fallacious scientist - and ignore my arguments. And if I agreed with some or all, you'd just take that as given, even though I might be wrong.

This is why OLO frustrates me. It's really hard to actually debate or discuss issues.

bazz..the numbers are explained here
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php

use the side scroll bar..to get just before middle
it explains everything

also..take the bar most of the way down..to the ACTUAL QUOTES
which are extensive and revealing

at the 3/4 mark are around 20 vidios

at 4/5..are..extensive proof of the fraud$$$,,by hot link
[a sample..of the titles]

Al Gore Set To Become First “Carbon Billionaire"

Britain's main climate monitoring unit is purging its temperature records from public view

Leaked FOIA files 62 mb of gold
Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails
MAN-BEAR-PIG Is Dead!… Emails Prove Global Warming Junk Science Conspiracy

Mike's Nature Trick
Climate change cover-up? You better believe it
Three Things You Absolutely Must Know About Climategate

Hacked climate emails include calls for ‘Earth Government' as foundation of new world order

Uh, oh – raw data in New Zealand
tells a different story than the “official" one

Warwick Hughes shows how Jones selections
put bias in Australian Temperatures

Climategate: the scandal spreads,
the plot thickens, the shame deepens…

Why is “Climategate" Getting Little to no Coverage?
The Global Warming Scam

Unreal. Climategate Junk Scientist Michael Mann Awarded Half a Million in Stimulus Cash

Scientists using selective temperature data, skeptics say

Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified

BREAKING NEWS: scientist admits IPCC

used fake data to pressure policy makers

Storm brews over glacier blunder

UN climate panel blunders again over Himalayan glaciers

Climate change chief says sorry for hot air claim over melting glaciers

United Nations caught lying again, this time Stormgate

and still the lies go on

a graph they..dont show..us
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
a closer look at the numbers

one thing that repeatedly comes up..s i studied the studies
[ie im a numbers man/woman..not a scientist..but

[cossomby..its 8..posts now]

OUG you know I truly call you a mate.
But on this matter I name you uniformed.
SHOUTING will not change my mind time may change yours.
Labor is in part to blame for us warmist,s only numbering 40 percent now.
One day Gillards part in not letting Rudd do as he wanted before the knifing will support my view.
But mate! you frolic in every conspiracy thread but ignore here the anti global warmers are the victims of a conspiracy to keep fossil fuels unchanged.
Time will let the truth breath.

Cossomby,

Jeeez! so I put away my epee 'casue you told us your were turning in and when I turn around you're at it again!

<<SPQR: you also just demonstrated my point. It's clear you haven't examined your own biases!>>

You are not seeing the big picture.

I'll sketch it in *classical debating* terms for you. We had a little debate going on this here thread. The warmist versus the sceptics (and, although the sceptics were winning it hands down in terms of logical argument) neither side could prevail.

Then in the midst of this stalemate suddenly one of the warmist pops up and says: "Hey guys we'll get a non-aligned person to decide this. Let me introduce you to independent Wendy --see, she even has independent as part of her groups name!"

But alas, when we checked on the background of this honest broker we had strong grounds for doubting her impartiality -- (and that's when you stepped in, Crossomby, play acting Mother Teresa!)

So yes, SPQR has a position, but anyone who followed the thread from the beginning knew that! The issue was whether we could rely on an 'activist' to act as arbiter.

yes belly..it pains me
[all..those i love are on..the other side

[but i..admit..its me that changed..
[about when..climate-gate came out./../

then..i looked at the proof
and there was only..models and graph.s

the proof..there is no proof[it keeps..on being revealed as fraud

so few will remember..once i was with..me mates

it began..in 1817..was revived again..in 1922..
then just after the ww2...war ..again...in 1954
then 1975..again in 1987..then..it..next arouse in connections with the cfc's [ozone-holes]..no..end to it..then cooling..next wareming..now climate change

[THATS NOT STRANGE?*

mate..they..ADMIT..they destroyed data
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/Anthropocentric%20Global%20Warming

they admit SEXING up the numbers

mate here is the ten thousand yeaR GRAPH
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/greenlandicecoretemps.jpg

HERE ARE THE PROJECTIONS
plus the real numbers

http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/ipccchart.gif

a leaked email saying its getting..cooler
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=544&filename=1120593115.txt

all'gore has lost court cases
http://abcnews.go.com/US/TenWays/story?id=3719791&page=1

the fudge factor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwGVr8rItsE&feature=player_embedded

no warming for 15 years
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

a bung satellite corrupted data
http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7491-official-satellite-failure-means-decade-of-global-warming-data-doubtful

a real'chart of the earth temp
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/SMALL_GeoColumn.jpg

mate do like i HAD TO..DO..look at the data

its the same/old new world order..delusion
http://www.infowars.com/hacked-climate-emails-include-calls-for-earth-government-as-foundation-of-new-world-order-splitting-of-america/

a cover-up
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=climate-change-cover-up-you-better-2009-11-24

the scandel and the shame
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017977/climategate-the-scandal-spreads-the-plot-thickens-the-shame-deepens/

So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts...Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest." - Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Climatology, lead author of many IPCC reports

"The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models." - Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

"The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful." - Dr David Frame, climate modeler, Oxford University

ITS THE GREENIES MATE*

"It doesn't matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true." - Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace

spindoc,

"Isn’t that precisely the issue? So what better way to test it."

Oh, now I get it. Not content with having "skeptic" argument continually blown out of the water by "real" scientists, you now want some sort of commission to decide "who's right".

Who's going to adjudicate?

Bottom line is that you would pose such a thing...because your side is the one without the substance.

Tough luck.

"I guess you are now back behind your sandbags and ready to lob more grenades?"

Certainly no need for grenades, spindoc...your mob take care of that aspect by continually shooting yourselves in the foot.

: )

......

OUG,

Regarding your stellar article on consensus- here's John Cook on his method on "consensus"

http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

But let's have a closer look at your article. I suspect if we scratch the surface we'll find Heartland lurking there somewhere.

Now let's see....

The author of said article is one James Taylor.

Could it be this James Taylor?

http://heartland.org/james-m-taylor-jd

Well, blow me down - I think it is!

But next.

Who is the hysterically wronged victim in James' article?

Someone called Craig Idso.

Could it be this Craig Idso?

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=15

"Craig Idso is currently the head of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a group dedicated to attacking the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). In February of 2012, internal documents detailing budgets and strategies from the Heartland Institute were released to DeSmogBlog. These documents indicated that Heartland pays Craig Idso $11,600 per month for his work attacking legitimate climate science. Idso's current research focus is on carbon sequestration. He is the son of the Center for the Study of CO2 and Climate Change's President Sherwood Idso and brother of VP Keith."

Well fancy that!

Yep, Heartland is seldom far away from a nice juicy denier story.

Shame they're so transparent, don't you think?

.........

SPQR,

Gosh you're having a good prance around this thread.

I assume Cossomby decided to post further because she realised we have "8" posts per day in the general section as opposed to "4" in the articles.

Who believes in global warming?

Well, right now, on Q&A, five business leaders are all supporting a price on carbon, deploring the bad politics calling it a 'tax', and saying that most businesses already factor in a price on carbon.

Q&A, that leftist ABC conspiracy, has 44% coalition supporters in the audience. (Actually, on the last couple of programs I watched, the numbers were pretty balanced coalition v. labor/green)

you know..i..love you p..so i must still say this

you said..

<<..But let's..have a closer look at your article..>>

then ignore the articles facts
and go the auther

but you just said

,,<<But let's have a closer look at your article>>

so lets ignore thhe guy
AND LOOK AT WHAT the articles is saying

refuting any of it?

let me begin

do you agree this is true
[i posted the link under..but wish to talk of the red picture]

on the actual article
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

hoping we could begin with agreeing

[the picture leads here
but its ccc-rap
http://theconsensusproject.com/#sharePage

anyhow the writing onthe picture
that goes to..a web site..

BUT*

lets write the words..of the picture..it says..

<<>.97%..of climate papers..>>

thousands right?

then notice the conditional modifying clauses

<<..97%..of climate PAPERS..[*stating a position]..
on..*HUMAN CAUSED*..global warming..>>

ok how many left..how many ?
no..really talk numbers..how many?

please think..ONLY 97.%.percent..of
the specific papers..STATING A POSITION..on human CAUSED global WARMING agree

ok..AGREE ON..WHAT?

<<..AGREE global;..warmiing is HAPPENING..and..WE are the cause>>

okhe says this regarding that

<<..Skeptical Science's 2013 'The Consensus Project'

Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.>>

ok..agree or disagree?

is it right or wrong[ignore the auther]

are the facts fact..
or spin..[who..s[pun?]..where is he wrong so far?

Climate Myth...

There is no consensus

The Petition Project..features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...". (Petition Project)

http://www.petitionproject.org/

is this true[forget authers/names]
this is just basic fact checking

true or false?

Here is some background on the Oregon Petition. In 1998 the OISM circulated the Oregon Petition, a deceptive "scientists' petition" skeptical of global warming: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine.

A quote:

"In reality, neither Robinson's paper nor OISM's petition drive had anything to do with the National Academy of Sciences, which first heard about the petition when its members began calling to ask if the NAS had taken a stand against the Kyoto treaty. Robinson was not even a climate scientist. He was a biochemist with no published research in the field of climatology, and his paper had never been subjected to peer review by anyone with training in the field. In fact, the paper had never been accepted for publication anywhere, let alone in the NAS Proceedings. It was self-published by Robinson, who did the typesetting himself on his own computer. (It was subsequently published as a "review" in Climate Research, which contributed to an editorial scandal at that publication."

As the anti-AGW people have been warning, you have to be cautious about impressive arguments based on selective use of data. It works both ways.

Crossomby,

<< most businesses already factor in a price on carbon>>
And most businesses in Hongkong factor in a price for feng shui--the hole in this wall was made to let the dragons through.
http://tinyurl.com/mex2py4

I'm told that on most warmist maps & charts there are the words beyond "here be dragons" or words to effect that!

<<Q&A, that leftist ABC conspiracy, has 44% coalition supporters in the audience.>>

hmmm, I'd love to know how you made that determination!

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/climate-change-when-ignorance-is-a-recipe-for-disaster-20131111-2xccy.html
Any reader of this link should at least see it try,s very hard to be balanced.
It rebuffs some things but in the end warns us, well what does it warn us.
Yes that scientists have told us the truth.
But if we just take only the evidence of our own eyes and ears, surely we will know some thing has changed and continues to change.

A day will come that holds some to account, that warns us all about the simple truth, politics is driving public opinion, not the science.

poirot/wrote..<<.Regarding..your stellar..article/on consensus-
here's John Cook..on his method on "consensus">>

i never heard of the dude
[p you know names are meaningless to me]

so i visited your link
presuming nothing..cause i thought you posted..MY link

http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

but..it seems its your link
[what confused me..was your refuting..john someone..and linking him..to heartland[who ever that is]

so..i went to the site
[i suppose i should have read the name of the site
ignored the huge two big key words..SKEPTICAL SCIENCE*

IN itself designed to..confuse and confound[ie spin]
then in smaller type

GETTING skeptical..about skeptical science

its WARMIST spin that..seems to be implying 95% concensus..
that was refuted by my link..that i presumed your link refuted..but it seems..we are both are unclear here.

but your words wernt clear..[either]

<<..But let's have a closer look at your article.>>

so i looked at YOUR ARTICLE..saw john someone's name
presumed..he was the guy you joined to heart-land whatever
but it wasnt at your link[or rather..it was..and thats the prat in the vidio..[john?][right]..hes the one you rekon is all heart?

<<I suspect if we scratch the surface>>
OF YOUR OWN LINK?..or mine?..refuting your last link?

think poirot..it truth is true..it don need be this confused

SOMEONE is spinning a wicked web

<<we'll find Heartland lurking there somewhere.>>

so what..science is science
[ps these papers wouldnt happen to BE
*students 'papers'..read RE_VIEWED..by their teacher./.[johnheartland whoever?

<<Now let's see....The author of said article is one James Taylor.>>

which article..your link
or mine

dear we must be clear to our mates
same for you belly..look at my proofs..if you refute a link..please say which link

we must..be truthfully CLEAR..to each other..here at olo

[ps watched two minutes of qanda..but crosszombie comment ruined it for me]..all i saw was 5 business lobby lobbying..for business..and less cost for them..more burden on me..

funny [no its sad]..how we only see
what we want/expect..to see.

the well has been polluted/who..paid for
that many biased papers[non mot even papers..something called..<<''abstracts on the subject 'global climate change'>>..thus get your students to wire extracts..[keeping it all in house]

is..not science..its parroting back
the taught rot..back..to..the preacher
note the numbers..surveyed..it that the same as per his student-numbers?

john..is clearly a kid..and biased
he is heartland?

cross-zombie..is the project of origen the same project
[or just students/activists].. doing it..in house with 'earth scientist' phd/greenies?

regardless they must all..have agendas..not facts
JUST THE..FACTS

belly..let talk science
from your biased link
[read the title..that alone is the giveaway

<<..Climate..change:..when ignorance*..is a recipe*..for disaster>>

ie..name-calling
climate deniers are ignorant
by..inference you warmists are genious

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/climate-change-when-ignorance-is-a-recipe-for-disaster-20131111-2xccy.html#ixzz2kNVx8KOz

anyhow next the spin
then the clever visual..affirmative picture..to let the spin..sink-in

<<..one question being asked is whether it is the strongest on record.

The answer? Based on the estimate by the US military's installation on Hawaii, the Joint Typhoon Warning Centre, it was the most powerful recorded cyclone to make landfall. It hit the Philippines with sustained winds of 305km/h to 315km/h.>>

emotive pictures etc deleted
then..the 'balance'

<<Japan's Meteorological Agency, however, estimated it to be much weaker, at some 230km/h. That wouldn't put it in the top 10.>>

but to..get to..that bit
you..have to wade/through..this bit

read it..and think why..so much bias
sits between..the first fear..and its eventual..lol..*balance

the/cut info

Residents..loot**water damaged sacks..ie,.RUBBI$H

Residents loot..water damaged*sacks.
of rice..from..a rice warehouse. Photo: AFP

*..Residents..loot water damaged.sacks of rice from a rice warehouse.
*..A young/survivor carries..a bag of rice..from a warehouse which they stormed..due to shortage of food.
*..People..throw items..out from a warehouse.

Dazed survivors.begged..for help..and scavenged for food,water and medicine..on Monday,..as relief workers..struggled to reach victims.
*..Philippine police and..soldiers..are deployed..to stop rampant/looting.

*.Roy Cagbian,28,stands with his daughters, 7-month-old Shandev and 3-year-old Ashley..in front of..their home destroyed*

*..A man walks home..with his son..through the devastated streets.
*..Survivors..cover their noses..from the stench of bodies left on streets.

*..A father..carries the lifeless body..of his daughter.on the way to the morgue.
*..A man and child..walk past dead bodies along the streets.
*..This aerial photo..taken from a Philippine/Air Force helicopter shows.a cut-off road

*..Residents queue up]..to receive treatment..and relief supplies at Tacloban.
*..Workers load aid packages..for the victims of typhoon 'Haiyan' in the Philippines..into a Lufthansa aircraft..at Frankfurt International Airport.
*;.Staff..load a Hercules aeroplane..with base camps and communications equipment..at Orebro airport..in central Sweden.
*..View all 46 photo/s

HOW..LOW>>>will*THEY..GO*

OUG,

Well, it appears that that was a pointless exercise.

Whodathunk you were so easily confused?

Let me break it down a little.

You posted this article, replete with quotes:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

"Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming.

After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics.

At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism."

My mistake was assuming that you had read your article and were cognizant of the person being targeted in it....who was mentioned thus:

"Global warming alarmist John Cook, founder of the misleadingly named blog site Skeptical Science..."

So I put up a link to his site and an explanation of his method for his consensus paper.

Next I pointed out that the author of your article was a James Taylor who is affiliated with Heartland and titled something called a "Heartland Expert" (Heartland being a front group for fossil fuel interests and big business)

Also included in your article was a lament by Craig Idso that he'd been wronged by John Cook's paper. Craig Idso turns out to be linked to Heartland also, in their employ and President of the NIPCC - a front group for Heartland (who's prime reason for existence is to attempt to imitate the IPCC and publish junk-science in opposition to "real" scientists.)

There is nothing misleading about "skeptical".

It's the "fake skeptics" who have tarnished the word.

Their skepticism is ideological, not science-based. The science is skewed by fake "skeptics" to fit their ideology.

Hence we have this thread put up to infer that "real" scientists need a commission to decide "science" because the IPCC and the many thousands of affiliated scientists are corrupt.

Poirot,

You keep telling us about the << IPCC and the many thousands of affiliated scientists >>

Can you tell us more about these “many thousands” please because the IPCC and NIPCC reports both draw their conclusions from the same body of published scientific research. So the equivalent lead authors and reviewers actually looks like this.

NIPCC issued its current report, Climate Change Reconsidered II (CCR-II), a book of more than a thousand pages citing nearly 5,000 peer-reviewed scientific references and written or reviewed by some 50 climate scientists.

It looks like the IPCC falls well short of the NIPCC’s numbers?

IPCC AR5

Group 1 (WG 1)

Coordinating Lead Authors: Ulrich Cubasch (Germany), Donald Wuebbles (USA)
Lead Authors: Deliang Chen (Sweden), Maria Cristina Facchini (Italy), David Frame (UK/New Zealand),
Natalie Mahowald (USA), Jan-Gunnar Winther (Norway)
Contributing Authors: Achim Brauer (Germany), Valérie Masson-Delmotte (France), Frank Kaspar
(Germany), Janina Körper (Germany), Malte Meinshausen (Australia/Germany), Matthew Menne (USA),
Carolin Richter (Switzerland), Michael Schulz (Germany), Bjorn Stevens (Germany/USA), Rowan Sutton
(UK), Kevin Trenberth (USA), Murat Türke&#351; (Turkey), Daniel S. Ward (USA)
Review Editors: Yihui Ding (China), Linda Mearns (USA), Peter Wadhams (UK)

Group II (WG II) assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change.

Group III (WG III) assesses options for mitigating climate change through limiting or preventing greenhouse gas emissions.

And this from one of the IPCC’s own reviewers.

“Dr Vincent Gray, the New Zealand scientist who has been an expert reviewer of every IPCC Assessment Report so far summarises the repeated fudges in their preparation. He writes: "Attempts of the IPCC to impose rigid discipline on a large group of scientists to persuade them to claim that human emissions of so-called greenhouse gases harm the climate, without being able to supply convincing evidence, has been a failure. Even their opinions on the supposed reliability of their 'projections' always leave an increasingly small escape route for the day when their approach is proved wrong.

SPQR: Re <<Q&A, that leftist ABC conspiracy, has 44% coalition supporters in the audience.>>

hmmm, I'd love to know how you made that determination!

At the start of every Q&A an audience breakdown is shown on the screen. I presume they ask the audience in advance, just as they must ask them what questions they want to put.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/at-climate-change-summit-in-warsaw-countries-look-to-lay-foundation-for-global-pact/2013/11/11/ee891286-4b0a-11e3-ac54-aa84301ced81_story.html
This link, to the Washington post reminds us 190 country,s are meeting to discuss climate change.
Abbott sent only a public servant, who he will take no notice of.
Do not despair those who like me are concerned at the fragility of anti climate change charges.
For just as the climate is speaking to those who will listen.
The world is becoming more aware that Australia under a leader that deny science has dropped the ball.
And as sure as the sun rises a day of reckoning comes to those who deny science

i had read intro/scanned the names refuting the conclusion
but..now see where i went wrong[not simply re-quoting..a proper author

<<..Viewing the Cook paper..in the best possible light, Cook and colleagues can perhaps claim a small amount of wiggle room in their classifications..because the explicit wording of the question..they analyzed is simply..whether humans have caused some global warming.

By restricting the question to such a minimalist, largely irrelevant question..in the global warming debate...and then..*demanding an explicit,..unsolicited refutation..of..*the assertion..in order to classify a paper as a ‘consensus’ contrarian,

Cook and colleagues..misleadingly induce people..to believe 97 percent of publishing..scientists believe in a global warming crisis when..that is simply not the case.

Misleading the public..*about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish.

This is a tried and true ruse..*perfected by global warming alarmists...Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment..to misclassify published papers*..according to criteria that..is largely irrelevant*..to the central issues in the global warming debate.
.. Then, by carefully parsing the language..of their survey questions and their published results,..the alarmists encourage..the media and fellow global..warming alarmists...to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant..*surveys as conclusive evidence..for the lie**that nearly all scientists..believe humans..are creating a global warming crisis.

These biased, misleading,and totally irrelevant “surveys” form the best “evidence” global warming alarmists can muster in the global warming debate...And this truly..shows how embarrassingly feeble their..alarmist theory really is.

aahhh/men
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

may we agree..to disagree..the case
is too polluted..as we now..clearly..can see

belly..please explain what this graph..is saying
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/ipccchart.gif

IPCC predictions..are..in yellow/orange,
real world temp=in blue/green

the real..life situation..becomes MORE CLEAR,,here
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/greenlandicecoretemps.jpg

Cossomby,

Isn’t that your core problem? << you presume >>?

We used to say in “real” business that anyone who “assumes” makes an “ass” out of “you” and “me”.

In the corporate real world where employees were held accountable for authority, accountability and responsibility, we always accepted the word “assume/presume” as an acknowledgement of guilt and the laying of blame.

Which invoked the response, please “ Clear out your desk, collect your long brown envelope from the HR Office and you will then be escorted by Security to the front door”.

We used to fire most of the Pressumer’s/Assumers because this indicated that they were full of bulltish, a waste of investor capital and a drain on shareholder return on investment.

In the rare instances where the decision to fire these misfits was challenged, we never even turned up at the appeal because it was embarrassing for the appellant, they used to do more of what it was that got them fired in the first place.

Looking forward to your “appeal” Cossomby.

spindoc,

Please don't insult my intelligence with this bleat: : ".... expert reviewer of every IPCC Assessment Report...."

"Expert reviewers" are not appointed by the IPCC...they volunteer and sign on their own undertaking that they have some expertise.

Monckton has signed up as an "expert reviewer".(Says it all)

Don't think I'm going to fall for that one....it's another BS area where denialists seek to gain faux legitimacy in the climate debate.

Here's the background on Vincent Gray:

http://www.desmogblog.com/vincent-gray

"Gray often introduces himself as an IPCC expert reviewer. He says that "I have been an 'Expert Reviewer' for The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) since its first major Report in 1990."

He uses this as justification for his continuous attack on the IPCC, having called the panel "fundamentally corrupt," and describing their scientific methods as "unsound." Gray also published a book critiquing the IPCC titled The Greenhouse Delusion. The book describes the panel has having "not convincingly made its case that increases in carbon dioxide levels are occurring and [sic] that increase will have harmful effects." [1]

Although the National Post suggests that "no one has been a more faithful reviewer than Dr. Gray," all it takes to be an expert reviewer is to refrain from publicly commenting on the draft. So just about anyone who requests to see a draft of the IPCC's report is qualified to be an IPCC expert reviewer."

........

You write:

"NIPCC issued its current report, Climate Change Reconsidered II (CCR-II), a book of more than a thousand pages citing nearly 5,000 peer-reviewed scientific references and written or reviewed by some 50 climate scientists."

"...50 climate scientists."

Well I bet if we examined the credentials of the "50 climate scientists, we soon find that many of them don't hold qualifications in the areas they're dealing with.

This what a comprehensive list of climate scientists looks like

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ar5/ar5_authors_review_editors_updated.pdf

Your NIPCC is a joke of major proportions.

And your attempt to hold them up as an equivalent body to the IPCC is even more laughable.

Ah Poirot,

Poirot- A legendary character in detective novels that uses intellectual capability to solve crimes.

Doing a Poirot- Those who seek to adopt these legendary skills to purport to be intellectually superior.

Having a Poirot Moment-Those who when asked the question “what time is it”, reply with “it is a green one with a long zipper down the side”

You start with << Please don't insult my intelligence with this bleat >> To which we might well reply we don’t, you are doing a great job all on your own.

So, with much pseudo–intellectual might you seek to interrogate the credentials of the NIPCC but fail to acknowledge the credentials of the IPCC? How curious?

So how many of the NIPCC members that you lampoon are actually members of the Heartland Institute?

How many of the “thousands of scientists” supporting the IPCC can you name? I’ve already given you my list. Names, qualifications, allegiances, associations, memberships and employers. I’ve listed all published lead authors for the IPCC.

Where is your list? Please substantiate your case.

So, to your link to “IPCC names”

You don’t read, you don’t understand, you don’t comprehend, you don’t form your own opinion, you “feel” rather than read, you have fallen into the trap of proselytisation and belief in the opinion of others rather than thinking for yourself.

So where are these “many thousands” of IPCC scientists to which you refer? You can either substantiate your claim or admit you are a liar. Your choice.

You, on the other hand chose to perpetuate the vexatious debate of “us vs them’. This is because without this “off line” debate you are reduced to a shell of complicity within your own ideology.

You Poirot, are a figment of your own alarmism. There is little else left in your life and you must sustain it to salvage the last remnants of your imagined sanity.

What are you going to do when this all goes down the “dunny”?

spindoc,

Those names represent substance.

If you wish to investigate further, I suggest you do your own research.

".....You can either substantiate your claim or admit you are a liar."

(Careful there with your reference to "liar". It's prohibited around here to explicitly call fellow posters liars)

And to top it all off, you then come up with some duffer who swans around saying he's an "IPCC expert reviewer", therefore attempting to grab for himself a little legitimacy.

But I don't fall for that clap-trap.

Sorry 'bout that.

The bottom line is that you "skeptics" on this thread keep throwing up your wonderful devices - and I keep hitting them on the head with a Poirot-shaped mallet.

Sorry 'bout that.

please explain what this graph..is saying
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/ipccchart.gif

IPCC predictions..are..in yellow/orange,
real world temp=in blue/green

the real..life situation..becomes MORE CLEAR,,here
http://whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/greenlandicecoretemps.jpg

[cry-mate]..climate gate is very real
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php

Poirot,

<< If you wish to investigate further, I suggest you do your own research >>.

I don’t normally ask questions to which I don’t already have the answers. I have given you the published list of “scientists” contributing to both the IPCC and the NIPCC. I don’t have to investigate further, I’ve already done my research, when are you going to do your research or refute.

[Deleted for abuse.]

spindoc,

I'll state again, the NIPCC is a sham.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/18/fox-equates-faux-un-climate-report-with-the-rea/195947

"Fox News is glossing over the near-unanimous consensus* on climate change by citing a fringe study that claims the phenomenon is minor and "not dangerous." But the network did not mention the latter's industry ties or dubious pedigree.....'

"However, Fox News omitted what is expected to be the signature finding of the IPCC, an unpaid group that works to summarize the state of climate science and has been called "inherently conservative" in its approach -- that "the odds are at least 95 percent that humans are the principal cause" of climate change (short-term trends do not undermine this verdict).

The NIPCC report, meanwhile, was compiled by paid contributors and did not go through rigorous peer review. Furthermore, the body that published it is a joint project of three fossil-fuel-backed groups, including the Heartland Institute, which earned its bona fides as "the world's most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change" through stunts like associating "belief" in the issue with the Unabomber. Previous editions of the NIPCC report have been called "dishonest" and "not a credible scientific undertaking." Fox News mentioned none of this.

In emails to Media Matters, major climate scientists criticized the network for citing the NIPCC in the same breath as the IPCC.

Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research:

The NIPCC has no standing whatsoever. It is not a reviewed document, it is not open for review at any point and it contains demonstrable garbage and falsehoods. In contrast the IPCC process is rigorous, open and there are 2 major reviews. This is irresponsible journalism.

Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University:

The NIPCC statement run by Fox is flat out wrong. Media who cite both IPCC and NIPCC in the same breath (or in close proximity) are clearly either uninformed or attempting to confuse the public, unless of course, they are attempting to clear up any confusion about the two organizations by making clear that NIPCC does not represent the expert consensus on climate change. If NIPCC is ever cited, it should be within the latter context."

[Deleted for abuse.]

NIPCC..receives no government..or corporate funding.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2013/10/prweb11238362.htm

Just weeks before..the IPCC released its major report on September 27, NIPCC release.. its own 1,000-page report listing..some 50 climate scientists as authors,..contributors,..or reviewers.

While the IPCC/reports growing..confidence that climate change is man-made..NIPCC finds just the opposite:..The human impact is likely to..be very small,..and a modest amount of warming..would probably produce..just as many benefits as costs.

In a new and smaller report issued today,..four of the lead authors of the NIPCC report..Dr. Craig-D..Idso,..Dr.Robert M..Carter,..Dr. S. Fred Singer,..and Dr. Willie..Soon

..offer a withering critique..of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers, a 30-page summary..of the much larger repor.. that is still being revised...Among the..“retreats”..they identify in the IPCC’s latest report:

*.Global temperatures..stopped rising..15 years ago.despite rising levels..of carbon dioxide,..the invisible gas..the IPCC claims is responsible for causing global warming.
* .Temperatures were warmer in many parts of the world approximately 1,000 years ago, during the so-called Mediaeval Warm Period.
*..Antarctic sea ice extent is increasing rather than shrinking.
*..Climate computer models fail to reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the past 10–15 years.

Read the report here.
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/scientific-critique-ipccs-2013-summary-policymakers

The scientists..also fault..the IPCC..for claiming the warming of the late twentieth century..was “unequivocal”..when many temperature databases..*show no warming,

and..for saying..changes..since 1950 were..“unprecedented”
when..the historical record..contains many examples..of changes more rapid..or more extreme..due to natural causes.

The scientists..are especially critical..of the IPCC’s claim that it is..“95% confident..global warming..is man-made and will be harmful.

“This terminology..is unscientific,”..they write.
“It has been used..improperly..to create a false impression of increasing..statistical/certainty..through the most recent IPCC assessment reports....

IPCC’s quasi-numeric..*confidence statements..represent considered ‘expert opinion,’..reflecting a process..not very different from a show of hands..around a discussion table.

The terminology confers..an impression*..of scientific rectitude onto.a process t..hat is inescapably/subjective..and has been widely criticized..as misleading.”

The complete 18-page..critique is available.online at Heartland.org

The Heartland Institute..is a 29-year-old national nonprofit organization headquartered..in Chicago,..Illinois

spindoc,

You're the one pigeonholing my "thousands of scientists" statement as being in reference to the IPCC.

I simply inferred that there are thousands of scientists involved in the legitimate study of global warming - most who of whom, judging by published peer-reviewed papers, are likely to back AGW.

You can keep pretending you have driven me down a one way alley if you wish.

I'm not getting in a lather about it.

Oh Dear, it is not important, they both have missed the point.

Global Warming whether real or not does not matter.
It is no longer important.

OUG,

"In a new and smaller report issued today,..four of the lead authors of the NIPCC report..Dr. Craig-D..Idso,..Dr.Robert M..Carter,..Dr. S. Fred Singer,..and Dr. Willie..Soon"

(Hey, hey...I reckon you've scooped up a goodly portion of star contrarians there : )

"..offer a withering critique..of the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers, a 30-page summary..of the much larger repor.. that is still being revised...Among the..“retreats”..they identify in the IPCC’s latest report:

*.Global temperatures..stopped rising..15 years ago.despite rising levels..of carbon dioxide,..the invisible gas..the IPCC claims is responsible for causing global warming.
* .Temperatures were warmer in many parts of the world approximately 1,000 years ago, during the so-called Mediaeval Warm Period.
*..Antarctic sea ice extent is increasing rather than shrinking.
*..Climate computer models fail to reproduce the observed reduction in surface warming trend over the past 10–15 years."

Keeping in mind:

"The NIPCC report, meanwhile, was compiled by paid contributors and did not go through rigorous peer review. Furthermore, the body that published it is a joint project of three fossil-fuel-backed groups, including the Heartland Institute, which earned its bona fides as "the world's most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change" through stunts like associating "belief" in the issue with the Unabomber. Previous editions of the NIPCC report have been called "dishonest" and "not a credible scientific undertaking...."

But, hey your's is not a comprehensive list of climate change myths....

This is a comprehensive list of climate change myths:

http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php

If you don't mind going back to Skeptical Science, you'll find all the myths you could wish for.

There are 174 listed there - each with a response based on the science.

If you stick to the myths themselves, you could memorise them and that way you'll never be without one to put forward on this or other blogs.

>>Could a Royal Commission into human induced climate change draw out the issues of difference and offer reconciliation?<<

Seems reasonable. But the true believers on either side won't like it; they'll think it is a waste of money to establish a fait accompli.

On reflection that makes it sound like an even better idea. When both sides in negotiation consider the proposed solution a bloody stupid notion, the proposed solution is probably close to being the best solution.

King Solomon had the right idea but unfortunately there aren't any obvious babies to sever in this debate.

Cheers,

Tony

This subject brings with it *every time* a near state of verbal war.
Tony in the post above mine speaks with common sense, about a true debate.
Common sense but totally imposable!
I expect a very small minority use such threads with tongue in cheek to stir.
In fact it is my view both sides believe what they say.
Nothing is harder to move than a closed mind.
I see, sorry remember I said we believe what we say, *this threads opening path* was and is insultingly challenging to science and thoughts other than the authors;.
Can we agree man abuses rivers streams and the sea?
We dump just about anything in or on our land, surely we agree?
And do we concede SOME things released in to our atmosphere should not be there?
OUG says the science is fraud, WHY?
WHO wants to tell the world lies? to what end? who gains from Abbott,s view climate change is crap?

Tony Lavis that was too close to a WM Trevor post. Greater differentiation is needed with the next one, otherwise, people will be a wake up to your Punch and Judy routine.

dear poirot..im skeptical..because..of the distortion..of the science
but..yo behold warmists..claim EVEN the.name skeptical..as theirs..thats too clever..by too far..my dear

that reveals premeditation..ie planing..on behalf of GOVT shils

you say heartland..is big coal..well the other..is big govt wanting taxes..and the leaders have reaped..in great wealth..[so money is clearly their weakness

you claim thousands..of experts..
but reaDING 20 PAGES INTO...YOUR PROOF

i noted that each page..was a new section..we got fossil paper's for egasample[a full page..of them..]funny enough a full page of all sorts of strange stuff...[almost like they said...we need 20 experts for..each page..and found them..[done]

mate..if my wife lies to me..she lied
this mob lied to..me too..many times..belly says i..dont trust science..but i do...trust science..but not that application..of science..and..just not their..cure..to their problem..nor the real cause..[its not man made..its made by INDUSTRY-polution..not all men

but putting man..into the guilt-seat
well..thats clever..guilt/spin

and..funny enough..the cure for..all this OVER/INDUSTRIALIZATION..from..lol..a..govt ngo=build more industries..making..polluting solar cells
building more wind-farms..CANNOT..be..carbon-free..lol..build more web sites..with confusing names

but..the INDUSTRIALIST..poisoners..of our world wan.. more money
to..*rebuild everything..all over again..with my dollars
funny how money fixes anything..but..we damm near destroyed..the earth..the first/phase..of industrialization..now..THEY..want/us to..rebuild it..after pulling it down..[insane]

its insane..
your defending..those gone insane..from industrial-greed

you..will save the world..for free..but those feeding you..the poisen..get rich..there is a nice.name .for that..*not that i name it upon you..cause i see..i have done it..many times myself..but they call those/./working for free..useless idiots..

but..funny enough..we useless-idiots..are the last..to see
[see our passion..has made us..blind deaf..and dumb

..[all..the real..[paid]...lobby need do..is add..a bit of fuel to the..fire and..let us usefull-idiots..do their..well paid job..for them

you would need recall..who gave you..the links..in-the first place
then..to see where..they got the money from..for these thousands of scientists..to do their PAID STUDIES*..

who paid..govt..?
industry?..who needs more..money govt?..industry?

[no..govt..is too loose..its the public_service
servicing..the boys club/industrialists/bankers/layers..and the pr mob

anyhow..i will continur..being..a usefull idiot
so im presuming will..the rest of us

why?..we stopped listening..
not caring

bye

KarlX,

You appear to be trolling Tony Lavis.

You turned up on the forum to have a go at him (and WmTrevor - who you appear to believe are one and the same) on the 18th, 19th and 20th October.

Since those dates you have only posted on this forum three times.

Now you are back to have another go at Tony Lavis, completely off topic, out of the blue.

Trolling indeed!

(Just so you realise how transparent you are)

On the evidence Poirot I believe you have got Karl x right.
A droll troll we do not know if he/she is just a kid or has any reason to post such insults, lets not feed the man/child/woman.
I can not get this thread out of my head.
I hope we all understand how very close to Hitlers Germany book burning this thread title brings us.
The seeming request/suggestion we tell Children to ignore teachers!~
Out standing stuff, I think not.

It seems deniers want to tread carefully when attempting to push their case in places of official arbitration.

Here's what happened when one group appealed to "Parental Intervention".

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/11/13/2934861/climate-deniers-pay-80000-court-fees/

"A New Zealand group dedicated to downplaying the existence of climate change has been ordered to pay close to $90,000 in court fees for bringing a “faulty” lawsuit that had sought to invalidate data that proved the country’s temperatures were on the rise.

The New Zealand Court of Appeals ordered The New Zealand Climate Education Trust — a group that seeks to “reflect the truth about climate change and the exaggerated claims that have been made about anthropogenic global warming” — to pay fees to the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, an environmental science research firm. The lawsuit claimed that NIWA was unethically and intentionally misinterpreting temperature data to promote the idea that climate change was happening.

But Justice Forrest Miller ruled that the Trust was “mounting a crusade against NIWA and was not acting reasonably,” according to a report on Radio New Zealand."

So "commissions" and frivolous lawsuits based on junk-science can't withstand the veracity of "real" science.

please read as few sections of this plan
http://iamthewitness.com/Protocols-of-Zion.htm

it will explain..why friends are divided..and govts are useless
and the courts press-banking war systems are all policing policy..not law

think..who..is feeding our divisive dire-versions
as part of a bigger scam

# On the ruins..of the eternal..and genealogical aristocracy..of the GOYIM..we have set up the aristocracy..of our educated class headed by the aristocracy..of money.

The qualifications.for this aristocracy we have established i..n wealth,..which is dependent upon us,..and in knowledge,..for which our learned elders..provide the motive force.
# Our triumph has been rendered easier..by the fact that in our relations..with the men, whom we wanted,..we have always worked upon the most sensitive chords..of the human mind,..upon the cash account,

and..upon the cupidity,..upon the insatiability...for material needs of man;..and each one of these human weaknesses,..taken alone, is sufficient to paralyze initiative,..for it hands over the will of men to the disposition..of him who has bought*..their activities.

# The abstraction of freedom..has enabled us to persuade the mob in all countries that their government..is nothing but the steward of the people who are the owners of the country,..and that the steward may be replaced..like a worn-out KRUDD_glove.

# It is this possibility..of replacing the..JULIAR*..representatives of the people..which has placed at our disposal.. and, as it were, given us*..the power of appointment...{EVEN><>OVER govt boreds]

majic works..by redirection..stop getting so..easily distracted

here we are wasting time..when..YOU CANT StOP..tony
FOR #maybe 3 YEARS..[he wont be fool enough to..go a double dissolution..

so lets get on..with things we can..hope..to change..
or re-arrange..*by not following..THEIR all/too..clever*prompts

move on..to the real..adgenda
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15664&page=0

the kiddies plan..a black flag event
this aint it..so now..im searching..out the clues..[from real news]

courts are govt
govt..has sold out..

as long as
lies feel..better..than truth..we are all doomed

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/climategate.php

im..so over this topic

id rather be here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6040&page=0#175453

but..lies..means..a very big lie..is..needed to hide it
Armageddon will soon..*make you forget..all about this lie..too/soon.

here was..the first phase of the plan
http://iamthewitness.com/Protocols-of-Zion.htm

THIS ISSUE..DONT..NEED PATERNALIST..[top down]..intervention
IT NEEDS FACTS*..judges judge..law*..[by what judges..judged..before them judged]..precedent/law.

Gawd!.....

Just in case you all think it is just me that is giving out the message
that the AGW worry is not really a problem, here is an article you
will find interesting.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=peak-oil-may-keep-catastrophic-climate-change-in-check

This really an echo of what has been coming out of the Global Energy
Systems Group at Upsalla University.
So far I have not seen any contradiction of the message.