Quite frankly, for all we know, Amicus/rpg could be John McRobert - just kidding John :)

Graham, your apparent fanatical interest in my share dealings is, well … fanatic.
Please excuse me if I don’t divulge all the personal nitty-gritties.

Moving on, the thrust of your fanaticism (metaphorically speaking of course) seems aimed at “those climate models”.

Given that real sceptics (not fake OLO ones) model climate too, your 'argument' is somewhat fallacious.

You are simply gilding the weeds.

Corollary: you are being critical of the petty things I do to glorify great things (you think) you do.

Qanda, when the person you are arguing with resorts to abuse you know you've won. If you keep it up I'm going to have to suspend you. I note you've been getting into a few people on this thread.

It was pretty easy to check the record on your share dealings. Not fanatical at all.

And I agree with John McRobert, I think that the anonymity on the web has become a curse. It gets in the way of sensible and honest conversation.

I think OLO is going to have to change the model in that regard.

Graham Y and John McRobert,

I'm not sure having a name and spits and spats about individuals on this forum would do much in clarification of anyone's potential bias or interests, but would remove the mystique of 'getting to know' people, without ever really being able to get to know them.

As the discussion is the thing, and attempting to digest and understand other people's points of view is the purpose, for building understanding, the forum is something of an online community 'think tank'. In this context, anonymity is probably a good thing - avoiding overt influence of preconceptions or stereotypical bias.

If someone is highly educated, wealthy, or an industrial magnate, does their opinion warrant greater regard than anyone else's? One may have in-depth knowledge on a particular topic, and this would be expected to come through in their posts, but it still behoves them to consider altenative viewpoints. However, once a seed of bias towards, or against, is sown by virtue of a declaration of personal details, both posts and responses are compromised.

Perhaps I make too much of this peripheral issue, but I prefer to consider all posts on their merit, and unencumbered by preconceptions.

On the topic: I am on the side of the environment, believing that every generation should be as caretakers in their use of the bounties of this magnificent planet, and as custodians for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations. A farmer's prayer says 'Live as though you are going to die tomorrow, but farm as though you are going to live forever.' A worthy moral, imho.

Those on the land all too often stand as bystanders, powerless, as the carpet-baggers rape and pillage in short-sighted haste, leaving nothing but hardship and heartache for those left behind and for all who follow. This generation, more than any before, needs to heed the multitudinous signs of a planet in pain. A caution: Empty ivory towers will be a poor bequest for those of the next millenium.

P.S. I am an ex public servant, semi-retired with a few cows and a bit more bush than I can handle. A bit of an environmentalist, in my own way, not much of a reader, hetero, a widow, no children, one dog, one horse, fairly active in the local community, watch too much TV, like SBS and David Attenborough's docos (and quite a bit more - good movies, etc), and am of first generation Greek/Anglo Australian born ethnicity. Also, I'm extremely handsome (not really, and a bit past caring anyway). And, I'm a Liberal voter, and seem to be more than a little opinionated, but generally try my best to keep an open mind, and to give people the benefit of the doubt - until twice bitten.

Now, there's really not much more in there than would have been detected by many of the perceptive followers of OLO from my previous posts on any number of threads.

They would also have surmised that I tend towards caution to a large degree, and believe that unbridled industrialisation is not in the best interests of this or future generations. Hence, I am a warmist. (And, I don't like storms or strong winds.)

Peter.

[Deleted for abuse.]

Some people following this post seem unaware of kwonder’s history on this site.

He originally made statements in support of the AGW hypothesis, and when invited to back his statements with science, failed to do so. It was pointed out to him that he should desist from unsustainable statements, and admit that there was no science to back his assertions.

He came up with the usual assertions about science, in lieu of producing any valid back up, and cornered himself, much as Steven has done.

Rather than admit the truth, that the AGW scam has established no scientific basis, he then said there was such science, but he was not going to produce it, and he did not have to. This made him appear a pusillanimous fool, and for a time he backed off from posting his nonsense.

I think he is best ignored, as his assertions have no substance, and his complete lack of credibility was established years ago when the original batch of AGW supporters went away, from OLO, with their tails between their legs. Kwonder remained, like the mongrel dog that no one wants, but has no home to go to.

I was surprised when Saltpetre perceived some validity in kwonder’s substance deficient ramblings.

His corrupt nonsense is not completely harmless, if he misleads some people. Saltpetre has fallen for the Juliar nonsense that CO2 is pollution, and is under the misapprehension that the scurrilous “carbon” tax will achieve something other than harm to Australia.

Australia absorbs double the amount of CO2 that its population emits. We should be issued with carbon credits, not forced to buy them from the tricksters who produce them under sanction of corrupt legislation.

Added to his already huge mass of misapprehensions, kwonder thinks a troll is someone who continually posts the truth about the AGW scam.

He thinks his name should be spelt “qanda”, but I prefer my spelling. It is clearer and does not give the uncomfortable feeling of a missing “u”.