Note: The context of this post is set forth in Part I. 

Here's the final portion of caracoid's tome.

The motive for the deception presented by the skeptics are two:  

A.  These scientist running the organizations were chosen by governments due to their belief in global warming, and their future profession is wholly dependent on confirmation of the theory.  Ie.  They have bet their careers on it.  (The threat of hunger is a powerful motivator for cooking the books.)

B.  Climate scientists can become climate scientists due to a strong pro-environment predisposition.  And the idea of man-made climate change justifies enumerable policies for slowing economic development--seen by many ecologists as the biggest threat to the environment.

I could go on about additional reasons and mitigating factors, but this is certainly enough to start and points I never heard addressed by believers.  One final big warning flag concerning the validity of the AGW crowd is that they refuse to openly debate their position, once again claiming that it would be both too complex for the average person to understand and that those who don't believe are quacks.  

Does that sound like a typically credible source to you?

If I have been deluded by false information, I WANT TO KNOW.  And I hope you will provide me with the information that will prove it.  Because if it turns out I'm on the wrong side of this issue, I don't want to be defending the indefensible, particularly with the gravity of the implications.

I don't know Badger,

"If I have been deluded by false information, I WANT TO KNOW.  And I hope you will provide me with the information that will prove it.  Because if it turns out I'm on the wrong side of this issue, I don't want to be defending the indefensible, particularly with the gravity of the implications."

That sounds like bainting to me.  This is a game, and they are continually trying new tactics.  Also this is likely an attampt to  suck us into a debate under false pretences, as I am almost certain that this person is not open to changing their mind by one iota.

B.

My impression is that this is all stuff that has been dealt with before. Have you check the list of rebuttals? The whole purpose of that list (and the primary goal of this site) is to allow someone to systematically annihilate every one of those points, by consulting the arguments presented already in SkS.

You're preaching to the choir.

As I said on another blog post, caracoid is a master of the passive-aggressive method.

Here's how another denier drone, LuapLeiht1, responded to caracoid's post.

Badger,

Hmmm.  Yup, you nailed it.  One can debate a serial liar and lose badly (e.g., Monckton), yet the science can be as solid as a rock.  It is a fool's game to "debate" someone who engages in lies, deception, and gish-gallops, and it is for that reaosn that my scientific colleagues do not wish to debate these charlatans.

Perhaps you should author a blog post on this topic?

Debating is different than responding in writing.

Debating is a performance, and the better performer will generally win.

Discussion is how reasoning is compared and contrasted. If we don't engage in discussion, we might as well all go home.