If this article is meant to promote his new book, then he needs a new publicist, the article isn't a good sales pitch.

1. The world is not on fire! The writer is a professional scientist and should n better than to write such stuff.
2. Greta is not a messiah, just a child puppet operated by ambitious activist parents, who use child abuse to promote their own ideas.
3. Ending fossil fuel use?, tell that to India and China!
4. COP25 in Madrid was a fiasco. The commitments where not worth the paper they were written on and as such the agreement is dead in the water. Why even bother with the Glasgow COP26? Oh yes the 90,000 delegates need their holiday trips on 747s.
5. New economics? why not get Bernie Sanders to run the world? Except for India and China, who will take over any world run by the likes of him.

Really, with this sort of rhetoric, how can the author expect readers to want to buy his new book?

@Allison Jane

Well said and I fully agree!

I think it is high time the silent majority finally speak out against this push by the Communists to wipe out Western Democracies around the globe. This 'climate change' scam is just the latest in a long line of attempts to destroy the free world so they can bring in their totalitarian regime on a worldwide scale. And that is no conspiracy theory. You only need read Agenda 21/30 to realise just how bad the world will get if we fully implement these evil laws.

This Greta sheila and all the other Commies like her around the globe are peddling pure evil. Their lies are so easily debunked but yet so many of the idiotic and stupid general public are still brainwashed and silent. They know they are being scammed, but are too afraid to stick their necks out, even just a tiny bit, to call BS on what is clearly a load of crap.

Take the garbage about Australia's bushfires this season. We have had far worse in decades and centuries gone by. What made these fires so bad was the fuel load. We always get long droughts and searing temperatures in summer. So the conditions for large fires are there every single year. But because our rotten and criminally negligent politicians deliberately prevented the clearing of the forests by either cold burning or physical removal of fuel, the fires turned into raging firestorms that no one was ever going to stop.

In Victoriastan there are large tracts of forest full of heavy fuel loads that the criminal and lying Andrews and his govt refuse to show the maps of. His BS about giving the locations to arsonists is just a cover up.

Wake up Australia. The world will not end in 12 years. That is a load of crap, but life as we know it today in this country may very well end in a decade if you let these Communists win!

Greta Thunberg, like all naive children - with a dose of mental problems and awful parents thrown in - is not 'right' about anything. As for John Avery, well Alison Jane's comments are more than adequate

Really, so Boris Johnson is also a communist.

I think the global warming deniers will always be in the very small minority of people. In fact, I will bet on it.

I even think Australia, with its large reliance on coal, is also going to change in the coming decade

Once Asia decides to ditch coal and oil gets expensive then global emissions could decline slowly. After the next COP in theory international carbon pricing could be implemented. If so Australia may be forced to comply. The current government seems to have some truthiness issues... they say emissions are decreasing when they went up last year. They want to build a new coal fired power station and at the same time be carbon neutral by 2050.

The decline of US fracking could be a trigger for an oil panic. We'll fly and drive less without being asked. If we're not allowed to have all-weather electricity like nuclear then we'll have to use less. This decade I think emissions could peak due to general anxiety not so much deliberate policy.

It's quite straight forward. We give all our assets to this mad scientist. We do exactly as he says or the world will end?
Here is a thought how about we take his passport and put a court order so he cannot fly in a plane or travel in any mode of transport that seats less than one hundred people. He can then show us the evil of our ways. Of course all you global warming bed-wetters can join him and I will stand back and be amazed.

" I think the global warming deniers will always be in the very small minority of people."

The hysterics and fear mongers still can't make up their minds if their bogey man is 'climate change' or 'global warming' even after a couple of decades of flat out scaremongmering. Is it change or warming we are supposed to be denying?

It is neither of these, of course. It is the man-made aspect of change/warming that we deny.

As for our minority status: I think Chris Lewis needs to look back at pre-election polls to see how far down the 'important' list the majority of voters rated the issue. Easier to grasp is the result of the last last election itself, when Australians were threatened with the loss of more jobs and even dearer electricity be because of the AGW lie.

that is true, but momentum towards greater action to reduce human generated emissions is likely to grow.

of course, the contradiction between self-interest and environmental needs will require smart leadership, but I feel Australia will end up making a much greater effort to reduce emissions.

I live in hope.

The outpourings of the deniers prove that parallel universes exist......

Agree with most but not all of this! truth be known the way out has a massive economic upside!

Population growth is the formula of greed and deliberately created pockets of poverty. And manifesting as tiny islands of wealth surrounded by deserts of want and unmet need.

Used to put downward pressure on wages. And dumb as when the real effect is to put downward spiralling pressure on the domestic economy support by the discretionary spend! Yes, we do need a new economic template just not the one governed by the ideological imperatives of an ill-informed Author.

Populations growth is controlled and downsized with economic growth in the lower socioeconomic sector and by the removal of poverty. Plus by the accompanying education of the female cohort.

Best facilitated with cooperative capitalism as the overriding implementation vehicle! And given that as the template deals out greed is good, conservative boosters.

Further assisted by real tax reform that just doesn't allow any form of greed is good, tax evasion to take place! TBC.
Alan B.

I am increasingly impressed with Alison.
My memory of women in debates is they always go with the flow and never get into a confronting or awkward situation.
So like a breath of fresh air we have what I classify as "my kinda woman", ya gotta love it.
Anyway what I find a little disappointing for me is, that she says all the things I have been saying/thinking, and of course once she has said them, I can't, and find myself thinking "that's what I've always said", but don't for fear of being accused of 'piggy backing' or stealing someone else's comments.
But it's all for the good when I realise that someone (she) said it.
Good for you Alison, and don't let sad little stroppy kids like Mr O and Co bother you with their childish, petulant rants.

Cont. And never ever allowed to happen by the current decision-makers

Because they and their ilk are part of the problem and leading us like sleepwaking lemmings to the cliff and coal-fired mass extinction. And I know you know who I mean. And so it will remain as long a very small group get into parliament with just 4.5% of the primary vote.

And it's them and their preferred Idiotic coal-fired policies we thank for the emptying out of rural and regional Australia. And their like-minded ilk, the world over for the severity of the most recent bush fires and extreme weather events, unparalleled in living memory.

We need t end our absurd and asinine reliance on coal! And I personally don't give rats if that sends a few foreign miners broke! Or upsets the 12,000 CMEF union members. There is a veritable smorgasbord of other minerals that could be mined as part of the decarb of the economy!

And given we just remove the self-imposed and stupendously stupid ban/prohibition on nuclear power, give ourselves the new carbon-free energy we need to run a nation and drought-proof it as well and only possible if we also embrace cooperative capitalism as the essential economic template that incentivises outcomes and productive capacity that has no peer.

Is nuclear power safe? Yes it is, if you choose the example that operates at normal ambient atmospheric pressure and cannot meltdown! TBC.
Alan B.

John you must have the math to be able to follow the chemistry & physics of the CO2 causes global warming theory.

Have you ever done it? If so you are merely trying to con us. If not with your scholarship it is disgusting lazy of you that you haven't, & then burst into print pushing the scam.

Any one with the math must know that there is more than enough water vapor up there to vacuum up every bit of long wave radiation that the earth emits half a dozen times over. If you don't believe me, do the math, then join the skeptics, if you have the guts to go against academia.

Cont. Why did Fukushima fail? Well, because a Tsuminami caused a power supply failure and because the backup diesels were in the basement! And didn't operate too well underwater!

You see in a conventional reactor the reaction is controlled by the raising and lowering of the fuel rods and they are raised by powered electromagnets.

And therefore in any conventional reactor, power needs to be uninterrupted! Otherwise, the reaction goes out of control, gets too hot and 150 atmospheres of unimaginable pressure can skyrocket!

And rupture the reactor vessel at which time the water flashes instantly to 2 parts hydrogen and 1 part oxygen. A highly explosive mixture and super hot!

And as in Chernobyl Exploding inside the reactor building.

Moreover without the coolant. i.e., pressurised water, the fuel rods melted out the bottom of the reactor vessel (Chernobyl)

And the workers then exposed to quite massive gamma radiation.

Why do you suppose used fuel rods are suspended in water? It's not so much thermal heat, but rather, radioactive heat.

You see, water contains and shields us or anything else from gamma radiation and why nuclear-armed nuclear submarines are the ultimate nuclear deterrent!

However, what I'm proposing is not highly pressurised systems but unpressurised and unconventional! Cannot meltdown given the system is already molten and deliberately designed to very safely operate that way!.

And means the MSR reaction is self-controlled by normal heat-related contraction, when the reaction speeds and expansion where it slows.

If there is a power failure for any reason the whole thing automatically shuts down and the molten liquid self drains to a purpose-built holding tank where it cools and solidifies.

The fuel can be abundant and cheaper thorium or nuclear waste which is burned and burned until the remaining energy quotient is consumed! Virtually thousands of years of almost free to us, CARBON FREE electricity, given that's part of our choice?
Alan B.

ALTRAV,

If she steals your thunder, you can always give her a pat on the back. I find that it is more important to laud the people you agree with than it is to argue with people who are never going to agree with you. Are you sure she is a she? Alison/Allison use to be interchangeable. I recall a Sir Allison Somebody in the British parliament, and males bearing the name were not uncommon in previous centuries.

It must be hard to keep preaching a religion that has more false prophecies than the Jehovah's witness. A religion that is bent on denying bring poor out of poverty and stopping everyone except themselves from air travel, reliable cooling in the summer and heating in the winter. These heartless charlatans make some of the American preaching charlatans look mild. To think they call themselves 'environmentalist'. psss.

Tell us something we didn't already know.

what? who is advocating not using modern appliances.

most are merely seeking to reduce the use of fossil fuels and relace them with cleaner sources. Take AlanB for example.

but, it is true. we should all seek to cut our own carbon footprint through sensible choices when knowledge is presented to us.

when people choose to criticise teenagers and call people communists just for believing in the link between human activity and global warming, u can only laugh.

What would a transition to unconventional nuclear power cost? Answer, if other conditions are met and sanity prevails, STA!

The necessary conditions are that we become the worlds preferred and safest repository for its nuclear waste! And earn annual billions for providing this service! And a service which to us also provides centuries worth of essentially unspent fuel. The annual billions could be tasked with mass-producing a tried and tested operational prototype and polishing it over time. I'd select the FUJI 360 MW and modify it to use fluoride salt instead of sodium.

Some would run on thorium and the rest on unspent donated fuel we'd be paid to accept, i.e., nuclear waste!

Tripling the reactors on a particular site produces a 1000 MW carbon-free power station and six multiples a 2,000 MW facility. Plus power prices below 3 cents PKWH!

[Folk protected from all rouge emissions by a combination of water jackets and concrete cubes housing the reactors.]

This won't happen overnight but could be achieved over a decade

Our current energy exports and then plus some could be sent via undersea graphene cored cables as. Electricity.

Our forbears managed to lay a cable from here to London with far fewer folk and far fewer taxpayer funds!

Energy prices below 3 cent s PKWH would return energy manufacturing to these shores and force our competition to emulate us or lose market share to us.

Finally, we need to build a national fleet of nuclear submersibles that carry our trad goods to their final destinations or associated rapid rail links. Therefore should be large enough to roll on and roll off, complete trans.

So, only impossible in the minds of folk who are against transitioning away from coal and fossil fuels. And all economic upsides!
Alan B

Chris Lewis, you are yet to give us any thing at all to actually link CO2 to any increase in the planets temperature.

The only thing alarmists have is that 30 to 40 years ago CO2 & temperature were going up at the same time. Some dill decided that he couldn't think of what else might be causing the increase, so blamed CO2. Now even that is is no longer tenable. CO2 is still climbing quite quickly, but much of the planed is cooling, or not increasing temperature.

What the hell is this thing about meat. In really cold climates, [ones that would profit from a lot of global warming], cattle kept in barns all winter may have some miniscule effect. In range land grazing, as in Oz, & many other places, if cattle don't eat the grass, wildlife, or termites will. If not eaten it will rot, & the same level of CO2 will be released into the atmosphere, where it came from to grow the grass. We will still have the same CO2 cycle, but we will have to grow some other food for carnivora like us, [dogs/cats etc.] Cattle are merely a useful machine for turning indigestible Cellulose into something humans can digest.

When looked at rationally the global warming scam is simply an attempt to take control of the population for no useful reason.

r u serious?

I am not a climate scholar; I have a qualification in politics.

as I have said many times, I agree with the literature linking human activity and global warming. that is my right and choice in response to the debate and the information I have observed.

What deniers go on about seems like a lot of rubbish to me.

cheers.

Poor Chris Lewis I see you have met up with Hasbeen.

Hasbeen is the one and only ever recipient of a Bachelor of Science in Engineering degree from the University of Sydney.

Do I need to say any more?

So Chris you don't think the grass will still be consumed by termites or rot, giving off the CO2 it consumed to grow, if not consumed by cattle, sheep kangaroos or rabbits?

What do you think will happen to it?

The author's article is a bit dated "Bush fires in Australia are threatening Sydney".

Floods have been threatening and now inundating Australia's southeast coastal communities, including Sydney, for a week.

Could it be global Cooling at work?!

plantagenet,

It's quite simple.

First the hotter planet produces the extreme heat waves. While that is going on the hotter planet is also warming up the oceans around the land masses experiencing the heat waves. When the heat waves have dissipated the hot moist air from the oceans creates storms, resulting in excessive rains and flooding.

Welcome to your new climate!

Let's do a little test. Next time power goes off during a storm, leave the power off for a few days to reduce emission. Then, sit back & see who screams first & loudest for power to be restored !
My bet is on the Leftist pro-GW crowd !

Yes Mr Opinion

Left by itself and with No Further Human Debate Acceptable

"global warming" can explain any longterm or short-term weather happenings?

Including Cold Winters?

A bit like the wise men of the Middle Ages proving someone is a witch.

Behold http://youtu.be/zrzMhU_4m-g

Aye Bwana!?

individual,

You're wrong. It will be Barnaby Joyce because he doesn't want government in his life any more.

Chris, what we deniers go on about could quite likely be called a lot of rubbish.
Not the part that the globe MIGHT be warming because it's going through it's normal cycle as it has done for Millennia, but the fact that the con-men who started this con went and made us the reason it is warming.
Chris, this is the situation, and of course it's not true, because too many articles are coming out daily debunking this lie.
The human race has done NOTHING to cause or contribute in any significant way, to GW or CC.
This IS the truth.
We just happen to be on the planet at around the same time as the globe is in it's warming phase.
Now this is the simple explanation, if you want more detailed info you will have to find it yourself.
In the meantime the following might go some way to explaining what we are about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVc-Y-mJ_uY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMF9aMI-9ek

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewJ6TI8ccAw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZdm-w6FmHo

Mr O has anybody told you today?
If you're not going to take these discussions seriously, please stop posting and just observe from the fringes, or better still just leave.
I can tolerate the jabs and quips and the insults, abuse and so on, but I draw the line at trying to infect conversations with stupid comments and reasoning.
You must be doing it on purpose, because even though there are at least a couple more that aren't far behind you, I can't believe someone can be as thick and petulant as you.
If you are truly a man of an age where society expects a mature demeanor, then the way you present yourself falls way short of the pale.
Either get serious or at least admit that you are having us on in attempting some levity in your postings or comments.

John Avery loses me in his opening two paragraphs. He says Greta is right is saying the world ("our house") is on fire and then goes on to say these fires are the result of climate change. However the examples he provides make no sense. Avery writes of fires in the Arctic but doesn't explain whether these fires were the result of drought or rising temperatures - the causes most readily attributed to climate change here in Australia. His following examples are the Amazon and Indonesia where he says all fires are deliberately and illegally lit. Given it is unlikely the Artic has experienced the same climatic conditions as Australia - which has always been a country of drought and high temperatures, it seems Avery fails to produce one example of how climate change contributes to the condition Greta complains about. Accordingly the rest of the Article has little basis.

Hasbeen, I apologise for using the word 'rubbish'.

Atrav, I looked at one of the you tube videos. It sounds impressive, albeit I am not a science expert.

However, even if I am wrong about the role of human activity, I would argue that it is not worth the risk to go ahead.

As Warwick McKibbon states, if we are wrong we merely have promoted new forms of economic activity, but if we are right, we may have saved the planet in terms of being much more sustainable for present forms of life.

Do I believe that termites and other life will long exist even with rising emissions? Of course, but I think it is much better to do more than simply pollute more, hope for the best, and adapt.

Chris, with the greatest of respect - and to Warwick McKibben also - 'merely creating a new form of economic activity'is not in itself an answer. Rising electricity prices merely increases economic activity but doesn't explain where pensioners get the money to pay their power bills. Closing down our productive sector shifts economic activity from manufacturing to importing but again does not explain where the money comes from. The only economic activity that makes sense is where Australians are generating income and growing wealth. Currently renewables are dependent on subsidies. Not only must we generate the wealth to pay for the renewables we must also generate the wealth to pay the government so they in turn can pay the subsidies having in the process creamed off a good margin to pay the cost of government.

yes, but both of us agree that human activity is linked to global warming.

however, how we remain prosperous and environmentally responsible is a key policy question

Chris, I must clarify and correct you.
Humanity is NOT responsible for GW or CC.
Burning of fossil fuels is insignificant regarding GW or CC, therefore again, we are NOT responsible for GW or CC.
So if your linking either human activity or burning of fossil fuels to GW or CC, you would be wrong.
Just check out the videos explaining and debunking all the alarmist theories.
The planet is warming (allegedly) because it is going through it's 'warming' phase.
It is simply a coincidence that aw are here at AROUND the same time.

They won't go for it. The Marxism thing.
Won't matter how it's wrapped. Won't matter how much they're terrorized about impending doom. They won't buy it.

The environmentalism thing's worked pretty well as cover, so far, to get the laws and structures in place but the inevitable failures are already being seen for what they are.

But what I want to know is in this green new deal, or sustainable future, or Steady-State Economics or whatever we're calling it today, am I going to be freeze zapped by Box if I try to escape out the side door?

this Marxism thing.

really, what are u saying.

where is the evidence that the UK and Sweden and others are marxist in their desire to address environmental concerns.

boris Johnson remains as much a liberal democrat as anyone in this country. He would piss himself laughing if he knew he was part of a Marxist agenda.

and sky news in the UK is a hundred times better than sky news in Australia which i view as an intellectual embarassment when it comes to the environment

Chris,

Marx is starting to pop up in environmental sociology. Some of what he had to say was critical of the relationship between capitalism and the environment. I'll have the dust off my copy of Das Kapital and have a look some time.

PS Not many on The Forum have a clue about Marxism. Throw in Weber and Durkheim and you've lost them completely!

i think the use of Marxism towards global warming is implying that elites seek to impose control in the name of the supposed collective well-being.

TBH Mr Opinion, I am hardly an expert on political theory. In fact I loath attempts to define how the world operates or should operate in accordance to some kind of political theory. My theoretical framework that drives any optimism I have is limited to liberal democracy, albeit facing unprecedented threats today.

BTW, my criticism of Sky News channel here is limited to after 6PM as I find their coverage even more biased than the ABC.

It's hardly a secret.

Interesting you mention Sweden Chris. Stockholm declaration, ah those heady days following the 60's hippy movement and it's desire to change the world. "Imagine"

State control of the means of production doesn't work out. No matter how pure the intention to do good is.
Intended or not it's where this environmentalism thing's going.
More of the same isn't going to solve the problems it's already creating.

Just pointing out the obvious that people won't stand for it when they start feeling the inevitable loss, destruction and deprivation these earth first agendas will wreak. As we're already witnessing.
The author ends eluding to 'adoption' of an economic theory that looks and sounds all too familiar.
He's not the first to suggest such.

There's no positive outcome with this path. There'll be no utopian nirvana afterwards where all the proponents of the new way are revered as saviors.

Their whole bs story rests on poeple being gullible.

They say there's global concensus against using fossil fuels.
I'm calling bs.

Lets see you convince single mums they have to car pool to get their kids to school or catch a bus to go shopping and well see how many of them actually support your crap, rather than nod their heads like idiots because its sounds good or is 'trendy'.
Your whole argument rests primarily on university students protests and opinions, (and the idiots who teach them - like the acting 5th column of the communist party) not the real thoughts of everyday people.

You say there's concensus about reducing fossil fuel use.
Try implementing fuel rations and watch your claimed bs scenario fall apart in a matter of hours.
Go on do it.

Lets test your theory that people REALLY want a reduction in fossil fuel use.

My i30 uses 5.3 litres per 100k's and can tow a dual axle trailer.
I live on a farm which has 1200 litre tank of diesel out the back, so I've effectively got my own private bowser.

So do it, turn the pumps off and well see what bloody happens.

I say your whole premise is based on bs, and a socially engineered narrative powered by disempowering the majority and empowering all combined minorites.

AC, good to see there are still some people left who are smart, aware and intelligent enough to know BS whenever it rears it,s ugly head.
I am buoyed and encouraged by the uprising of people realising they have been mis-lead and our coming forward and speaking out.
So much so that the alarmists are having to back down or reconsider their stance on all this.

Hey ALTRAV,

"I am buoyed and encouraged by the uprising of people realising they have been mis-lead and our coming forward and speaking out."

I think the useful idiots still outnumber the smart, aware and intelligent people at least 3 to 1, maybe more.

I heard the Labor Party's in an absolute tizzy right now, which is both amusing and encouraging.

AC, so more good news about the labour (HUH) party.
Now there's one of the best contradictions of ALL time.
There are no labourers in the labour party as they are people who actually worked for a living.
Doing physical work, labouring?
Labour party, indeed?
Now what is the labour party in a Tizzy about, I've just got back?

Now what is the labour party in a Tizzy about, I've just got back?
ALTRAV,
Well, I can only speak from my experiences from working with & around Labor supporters. The blue collar ALP supporters are of the standard "my Dad" voted Labor. The bureaucrats saturating the Public Service are there for climbing the ranks for their own benefit & the benefit of those who let them climb the ladders to maintain the status quo of the Swamp !
The power mongers in the ALP are standard Lawyers & Union reps who "help" people who pay the union fees ! The average blue collar worker in private enterprise doesn't count as much as those who can't afford to pay Union fees.

Hey ALTRAV,
This is third hand info, I'm not completely sure of the facts;

Someone told me yesterday the left and right factions of the Labor party are in-fighting because they realise their climate change and progressive agendas wont win elections.

So they're trying to be more 'conservative' but I think they're only paying lip service so they can win and then just continue to advance their irrational agendas anyway.

I think we spoke about this a few months back in the general forum, so basically it was anticipated, but I think maybe the bushfires has now brought Labor and the Greens policies under greater scrutiny.

I think that's whats going on, but I may be wrong.

as those
the above was a typo, should be "as they'

Just saw this on the net.

"Net zero" refers to achieving an overall balance between emissions produced and emissions taken out of the atmosphere. Like a bath with the taps on, an approach to achieving this balance can be either to turn down the taps (the emissions) or to drain an equal amount down the plug (removals of emissions from the atmosphere, including storage for the emissions such as "carbon sinks").

What are some of the habits we should curb right now to make a practical inroad in this academic idea ?

Indy, NOTHING! Nothing at all, as there is nothing we are doing that is making any real practical inroad to this academic idea or ideology.

individual and ALTRAV,

You two religious zealots absolutely amaze me with the extent to which you will go to shift the focus from human action to divine action.

It's too late to turn back the clock on the burning of fossil fuels. The best that can now be hoped for is that governments start building large scale geoengineering projects that are capable of sequestering enough carbon from the atmosphere to offset rises in the mean global temperature. Savvy?

Mr O, NO SAVVY!
You keep pedaling your special brand of BS, and we'll keep telling the truth.
BTW, I thought I had cleared up your twisted notion that I am some kind of religious freak.
You must have me mixed up with someone else, as the only entity I believe and believe in, is ME!
the only thing that is too late, is your being admitted sooner.
But luckily they heard about you and have a place reserved for you.
The best thing we can do is NOTHING, nothing at all, because there is absolutely no need or evidence of any wrong doing by mankind, and if you got off yor arse and did some research, you too would see for yourself, but as you think you know it all and don't need to refer to anyone or anything, I guess we'll have to keep putting up with your mis-guided sense of subjectivity and ideologies.

ALTRAV,
Our resident brain dead is a classic. Here, he's offered an opportunity to show off his "environmental Sociology" but what does he or only can do is yet another senseless quip !
He's incapable of commenting on a simple question, he's only got brainless sarcasm to make himself heard. What a sad thing indeed !

Hey ALTRAV,

"You keep pedaling your special brand of BS, and we'll keep telling the truth.
BTW, I thought I had cleared up your twisted notion that I am some kind of religious freak."

Yes, we shall.
I think Mr Opinion might be a couple beers short of a 6pk.
He accused me of the same thing 2 days ago as well.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=9075&page=0#299594

He must automatically think anyone who does not bow down to his climate hoo-ha must be a God-fearer?

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say about that, but there it is.