So you don't actually accept the findings of the study. Gotcha.

They observed no such thing. If you wish to prove otherwise, kindly cite the relevant finding.

Ignorant of what?

Again - the most obvious way for us to test your assertion that those who accept the science are ignorant is to tell us what fact(s) they are ignorant of. So again: What new information or model disproves the established science concerning the anthropogenic causes of climate change?

You've claimed repeatedly in the past that climate science has no falsifiable hypothesis - and been refuted, by myself and others. So clearly, this is not the new information you need to prove your assertion.

Now. Let's examine then, the state of your assertion:

1. You claimed your position was supported by the findings of the study - but you were demonstrated to be wrong, by a mere perusal of the studies findings.

2. When the actual conclusion of the study (which was based on testing the hypothesis stated by the authors) disagreed with your worldview, you postulated a different conclusion completely unrelated to the hypothesis for the study.

uh oh

3. You then made a specious claim that the science underpinning the theory of AGW was not falsifiable even though (a) you have previously claimed this, and been refuted (b) you have previously admitted that it does and (c) most appallingly, you have just postulated a conclusion unrelated to the hypothesis for the exact study in question! How's my summary so far? Sound about right?

Erroneously - you should read the article more carefully next time.

Several, in fact, since I'm challenging your assertion not the conclusions of the study - which in summary, says that:

1. There is an established view that people don't accept the established science because they don't understand it, do to lack of ability and the complexity of the science.

2. The study challenges this theory by testing for a link between scientific literacy, numeracy (analytical ability) and "concern" about the risks of climate change. It finds that in fact, some scientifically literate people are also sceptical about the risks of climate change.

3. The study then proposes (paraphrasing here) that these results support an alternate theory "cultural cognition thesis" which asserts that people deny climate change because it challenges an underlying worldview - even scientifically literate, analytical people exhibit cognitive dissonance. In other words - sceptics aren't ignorant. They are in denial.

Whereas you are claiming that scepticism arises from being informed, by substituting the concept of 'literate' with the concept of 'informed'. Hence my direct challenge to your assertion based around the information. If you can't actually front up that information, then your assertion is disproved.

Very well. I'll ask again. What new information is there that would cause us to question the established science on anthropogenic climate change?

Strawman arguments? Really? Do you really think that such transparently fallacious rhetoric will convince anyone?

Yep - which in this case, is you. You claimed The more scientifically informed you are, the less likely you are to believe that human CO2 emissions are going to cause unprecedented, catastrophic global warming. Where is this new information?

And why the secrecy?

Don't you want people to know the truth?

Desperate assertions of some vast conspiracy by a guy on the internet don't actually equate to new information.

Wrong again.

It is certainly true that in the past you have attempted, via rhetorical means, to shift the burden of proof on to others - and failed miserably. And you will continue to.

You are ascribing far too much weight to your own level of concern - the following illustrates why: Suppose that, on your way to work, the route goes past a school and there is a crossing there. It seems a dire inconvenience to you to have to slow and even stop for kids crossing the road, so after due consideration you decide to simple drive on and mow down any kids crossing - thus avoiding the inconvenience. You pursue this strategy for several days, taking out a couple of kids on each occasion. You are then approached by the police. You refuse to admit wrongdoing because you remain unconvinced that the lives of a few children are worth you inconvenience.

But your scepticism and opinion in this case count for nothing - what matters is responsibility (you are responsible for you own decisions and the foreseeable outcomes of those decisions) and liability (you are liable for the hurt that you do to others).

The same principles apply to climate change - we are responsible for the choices we are making, and sometime in the future, will be held liable for those choices.

If that were the case, then logically there must be available information which suggests that the current warming is not caused by human emissions, and thus, the last 150 years of scientific research into the issue is wrong.

But I note that, despite repeated requests that this information be provided, it has yet to be forthcoming. I can't help wondering if these secret teachings about the causes of global warming somehow involve Xenu.

Most pertinently of course is that you, personally, have been repeatedly requested to provide proof of your assertion that CO2 is ineffective as a greenhouse gas in the atmosphere (despite being experimentally effective) whilst simultaneously, some other orthagonal effect is causing the exact same rate of warming as the models predicted from CO2. So far, no information of that kind has come to light.

Why so secretive?

Well the sun actually does shine all the time - but you are right in that it is not always practical to say, create the transmission lines that would be required to capture over an unconcentrated area of that size. Hence the reason that Germany and in fact all proponents of solar power see it as an element in a mix of solutions - providing for peak loads (which in most places happen during the day) whilst relying on other sources at night. In my country we have abundant sources of energy - huge supplies of uranium, a geological dome of hot rock sufficient in fact, to power about 75% of the country just by itself, abundant supplies of sunlight, huge swathes of undeveloped land facing the southern trade winds. What is blocking us is simply ideology.

As I understand it, subsidies for other forms of electricity generation are just as large, if not larger - it's just a different form of accounting. For example, the coal industry pays next to nothing for our coal which they mine from our ground, and then later on, we pay to clean up the CO2 and other pollutants that they leave lying around.

It's fairly normal for large parts of the electricity generation system to be offline - gas fired plants are fired up to meet peak capacity and are otherwise idle, coal plants have huge, complex turbines, and frequently have one or more of these turbines offline for maintenance, etc.

Dido's into database solutions now? Guess the music career was tanking.

And hopefully the last. we need humans on the moon like we need ducks, tree kangaroos or submarines on the moon.