Mr Tiddler,

Let's wait for bonmot to answer Loudmouth's questions - he's a scientist : )

btw...whadaya carrying on about ad homs for? You labelled me "intellectually challenged" for not answering your political question.

Thank you, Poirot - yes, let's wait for Bonmot to answer those simple questions:

Yes? No ?

I don't mind if you or he tries to insult me instead of answering, I'm from Bankstown after all, from the days when it was half bush, so it's like water off a duck's back :) Just as long as, sooner or later, we get answers to simple questions without so much ducking and diving.

Then we can get back to more important issues than AGLW.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,

What is it with your disingenuous insistence that you are being insulted. You deliberately manufacture an inferior persona, then hurl it like rotten eggs at me in every post. You often use that particular strategy in your debates.

You don't know me. You consider me elitist because I can string a few words together in coherent fashion - and I'm in favour of trusting scientists on the science of global warming.

Your "confected inferiority" is merely ploy you use to get under the skin of your opponents (as if you're the only one who's ever done the hard yards) - and yet you implicitly accuse us of playing games.

Interesting tactic, but it doesn't wash with me.

: )

Hi Poirot,

Well no, it's just that disparagement is no barrier to a request for answers: be disparaging all you like, it shouldn't be illegal, after all - simply have the courtesy, if you want people to believe your narrative, to come up with some evidence for it.

Yes ? No ?

Thank you, Poirot.

Ahhh Bonmot,

'...as an important moral imperative'.

So you like Kevvy see AGW as a moral imperative. Is that an act of faith?

Do you

1. find AGW intuitive and cognitively unchallenging, or

2. think yourself to blame for unintended consequences, or

3. feel no guilt so exhibit offensive biases, or

4. wish the seriousness of global warming will be extremely severe, or

5. identify with leftie 'progressive' idealogues, or

6. believe it's a problem for only you.

My guess? I'm too old and wise to presume the reasons for others motives. Answers to my questions would eliminate presumption.

Cheers Bonmo

This thread was about Manne and his distinction between the elites who 'appreciate' AGW and the "ordinary people" who have been led astray by the msm and the unscrupulous "Deniers".

In a way bonmot's farcial paper on the moral defects of those who do not accept AGW merely reinforces the point; the point is those who are most likely to be disadvantaged by the measures to 'cure' AGW are once again being lectured by those who are probably least likley to be affected by the CO2 tax and the various other bits of legislation which this government has introduced. In this respect bonmot's 'moral' paper is ironic because the immorality of wilfully imposing pointless and unjustified hardship on people, as the writers of the 'moral' paper advocate, is completely ignored by the so-called moral elites.