"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...

It is time for you to lead the way. What critical thinking did you apply
to the above list?

well, THAT'S a redundant question! :-)

still, because there won't be an answer, i'll chime in: none!!

i read through the list carefully, because it's fascinating like joh-speak
is fascinating - the sum total is lots of words, but nothing actually said.
consider the following:
" 95) Australia has stated it wants to slash greenhouse emissions by up to
25 percent below 2000 levels by 2020, but the pledges were so unpopular
that the country’s Senate has voted against the carbon trading Bill, and
the Opposition’s Party leader has now been ousted by a climate change
sceptic."

hee hee hee hee...!
we're all australians here, so we actually know for a stony cold fact what
happened there, and the truth is just camoflaged by the joh-speak - it's not
that the statement is literally untrue (except describing ets legislation as
a "pledge", which is, of course, ridiculous; and to clarify that while the
ets had mass support amongst the public, its mass support did not include
quite enough members of the federal senate due to party-line voting, and
where it lacked support with either the senate or the public, it was in many
cases due to it not being firm enough, rather than that it was rejected
outright by deniers).

many of the 100 non-points in the list are extremely similar in this way.
(or just useless statements to form a magical total of 100). a more
committed denier could have cobbled together a more persuasive list of 10 &
left it at that - but amongst their ranks, overstatement seems to have
become the order of the day, which then, by extension, blows the credibility
of all of them by association. which i personally find a shame, because it
can be a bit of a worry sometimes if literally everyone agrees about
something - there is nothing bad about some robust debate, provided it is
for good purpose (not just for the fun of arguing). still, with climate
change denialism, a united front is probably not an option, some still deny
outright (in the face of all evidence, refer to the list) and others are
smart enough not to deny the obvious, but quibble about the cause, minor
details, and so forth.

what is also fascinating (besides the joh-speak) is why any denier actually
_would_; it simply makes no sense. a handful are involved with the fossil
fuel industries, but the majority aren't (indeed, overall, the fossil fuel
industries are seemingly _not_ staffed by deniers!!) the evidence has been
published for anyone to see if they so wish, and as you say, if even one
denier could make his case he'd be a megastar overnight. people don't accept
the probably reality of human-induced climate change because it benefits
them, they accept it despite the fact that it doesn't (overall). which
causes me to wonder what's going on inside the brains of deniers, and it
only gets back to one thing, magical thinking (a neurological phenomenon
normally associated with the under-6 set). yet, none of us would want such a
thing to be true, it's just one of those things that must be accepted as
highly probable. that we must ditch dependence on fossil fuel isn't even one
of those things where one has the luxury of an opinion based on ideology,
it's just a fact that everyone is aware of now; that it must happen some
time between sooner and later, so why maintain the line that human-induced
climate change is simply not true and is, in fact, a _conspiracy_ titter!

i saw ian plimer on the telly the other week. it was one of those interviews
that was just so embarrassing to watch that i could barely stand it (i find
it horrible to watch someone making an awful fool of themselves, although
there are crueller people who find it funny). considering how very few
actual names are given in the list, the fact that ian plimer's is, and
knowing what we know about his ghastly flirtings with fame, makes me wonder.
i am not acquainted with most of the others. if this handful of names
comprises the cutting-edge of climate change denialism in 2009 (if some of
them have not indeed simply been quoted out of original context & aren't
deniers at all), what hope have they at all? if one relies on the scrapings
from teh bottom of the climate science barrel, how can they hope to make
their case coherently, never mind "win"? if they did "win", what would they
have won?! what is the prize here for them, exactly?? and is it a better
prize than the majority's prize, which would be political, social,
nutritional (etc etc) stability, and a lack of damage, and, eventually, a
measurable improvement?

i want to know what the denier's prize actually is - because best i can work
out they don't have one. it seems counterintuitive to argue & fight against
an idea that's well-established, to tire and humiliate oneself, to lose the
respect of others, and so forth, in a fight where one side does not seem to
have a prize in mind, and if there is a prize it would seem to be one they
simply can't win. if some huffy & self-serving notion, such as "pride" is
the prize they're fighting for, should they not demonstrate slightly more
now in order to have enough left to have proven, later, that they "won"?

the other thing i want to know is where all these people were 25 years ago
when the subject was first brought up for debate in the public domain.
denialism only got groovy this year, but the horse had already bolted years
ago. does one fight harder & more desperately if one knows the fight is
effectively already over & has been for years?? _that's_ counterintuitive
_too_. intriguing, it is, viewed from any angle.

if there is an exodus from teh sock drawer overnight & matching influx to
this group, is it our fault for feeding the troll?
:-)
kylie