Dear Del,
How about an education program for all candidates in how to discern right from wrong so that they stop self centered games and truly represent the will of the people not their ambitions or the squeaky wheel, ah la the press.

Dear Del, please see the “tick the youth box with climate change” thread by Sophie Trevitt.

If you read previous threads you might stop subjecting us to the same old “Jesuit” reactionary proselytizing. You deserve only the same responses, but at least you do get to cut and paste only the responses you like.

Where on earth are we going with all this << public education program about the science of global warming>> madness? The scientists can’t agree so you want the public to sort it out.

Will all the non Marxists please take one step forward? Just hang on “one cotton picking” minute Del.

I think I get to say this because it was accepted on a previous thread, but I loved it. Stop polishing the turd.

Del,

I find it disturbing that you use the words "critically informed" and "climate change deniers" in the same sentence.

Sounds like your idea of critically informed is "what we, the god like the alarmists say, goes" and any other opinion is sacrilegious.

As runner said those of your ilk tried to con the world in the '70's with this (just the opposite), and I recall the same can be said for the peak oil argument, which has been alleged in the 60's, 70's, 80's etc. etc.

Not very convincing, especially when the BOM stated at 7am this morning that there would be no rain in Sydney until this afternoon, yet 45 minutes later, we had torrential rain.
Lucky I took my umbrella despite their predictions.

If you 'scientists' can't predict one hour into the future, the public is hardly likely to believe you can predict 100 years.

And if you really could I'm sure there would be plenty of investment banks that would like to have a look at your model to see if it can be applied to the economy.

Dear Atman, they do say that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Personally I think it demonstrates astute cleverness, a bit like the difference between regular music and improvisation and Jazz.

The link you provided is utterly disgusting and can only be described as the provocative action of a flat earther.

You have the audacity to present contrary scientific views at a time when some revered members of our community, mostly unqualified pseudo-scientists, are trying desperately to contradict or ignore qualified scientists.

Don’t you realize that, contrary to popular belief, that science is not the domain of scientists? In case you have not noticed, the internet has provided millions of people around the world with access to information and other peoples’ opinion. That information (and opinion) has delivered a quantum increase in access to data on every conceivable topic. So much so, that we now have a broad based population qualified for open heart surgery, bio engineering, nuclear physics, aeronautical design and quantum mechanics.

You seem to forget that, whilst the internet does not provide knowledge or common sense, these attributes may develop over the next hundred years or so. In the meantime, we must be allowed to develop and apply whatever decisions we can formulate based up on internet information and opinion.

You, and people like Runner and Jon J, seem to be oblivious to the fact that reality is no match for internet based quantity. You are despicable exponents and peddlers of reality; you must be expunged from the societal reality of opinion based assessments.

It seems that no matter how many times we tell you or how many links we provide you with that support our view, you still insist on your own fact based opinion. This is despicable.

We would like to support the premise that regardless of contrary scientific views, that our science is better than yours. Whilst there are clearly two contradictory scientific views, yours has no merit because it is purely based upon only two views, whereas ours is based upon a plural singular perspective.

Sarcasm has no place in this debate