@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!'