Cherry-pick a bunch of quotes.

Dog whistle frantically.

Hint at your own reasons, which are to promote again an anti-science view of climate science.

Then pretend that all of this is an exercise in academic honesty, aimed at promoting fact-checking (by others) before mouth-opening (by these same others).

What tosh!

Hi Ateday,

There's certainly more than one of him :)

Over your soy-lite Latte and quinoa-and-chia salad this morning, did you discuss with your friends how to go about reducing the population by 95 % ? Possibly, in the next few years ?

Come on, set an example, be the first of your group :)

Cheers,

Joe

PS. You're always welcome back here in the real world, where seven billion people have as much right to a fulfilling life as you do.

Yes, I admit that I first thought they were cranks - now I KNOW they were. I did some research on them using sources from Prof Frank Ferudi (see below), many moons ago.

http://www.frankfuredi.com/site/article/3

They represent on one hand, an absolutely delightful loony group which I have enjoyed lampooning, which I have done on OLO and elsewhere.

On the other hand, they represent a form of self hatred which is staggering. People are reduced to being scum, parasites and vermin. It's nature worship gone mad.

In the Queensland election they trotted out a candidate who flogged 'sustainability' for all it was worth including stopping immigration, kicking out the Kiwis, destroying the international student industry, cutting welfare to families with more than two kids, etc, etc. It turned out he designed the electronics in poker machines.

Any one who saw Dick Smith and Graeme Turner (their advocates in Australia) at the Press Club recently will know just how silly and irrelevant they are

Gee Don's gone into full creationist quote mine mode.

Hell Don why not pull a few out about how leaded petrol isn't all bad and smoking is good for your health.

I did Grim and the only phrase that comes to mind; is, hear hear!
Rhrosty.

Don,
I would have liked to send this onto other people but you destroyed the validity of the "quotes" by your subsequent paragraphs.

It would be nice to know just which 5 quotes you consider to be valid.

If all of the quotes valid or could be established as a fair summary of the thinking of the person quoted or not quoted, it would establish that the findings of the IPCC are not founded on science at all.

Your mind is obviously open on that question as is mine. The article does not progress the question further.