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.