And thank you for your support too, ALTRAV. We will have to tag team again on another topic.

I for one am sorry if Max has left the arena because I was thoroughly enjoying this debate. The interesting thing about Max's delivery was how in the beginning he was so supercilious and exhibited great confidence that he would soon put all of these stupid, dumb deniers in their place. But he left the arena hurling curses and insults because he suddenly realised that the "deniers" he thinks are stupid are not the mentally deficient bogans and deplorables that he and his brahmin caste think that we are.

Max's basic position was that his side represented science and his opponents were anti science, so this would be easy. But he has never bothered to try and understand his opponents position so he was unaware of how much scientific ground the alarmists had lost in the last few years. Manne's "hockey stick" was a big one, which quite laughably, Max is still a believer in.

The sceptics case is now so strong that the alarmists have resorted to creating alarmist sites which specifically tried to answer the pointed questions about science that the sceptic sites have raised. This was obviously where Max got his information and he thought that all he needed to do was to repeat the arguments that the alarmist sites were submitting and it would be a walk over.

I was prepared to go along with his tactic and even respond to his links provided that there was a quid pro quo and he viewed and commented upon my evidence. But Max was having non of that. His view is that he is indisputably right, so he need not even take my evidence seriously. That was his big mistake. Once I realised he would not debate in good faith, and he was simply preaching and not debating, I simply went on the attack myself and stayed on the attack.

Other sites you may be interested in. (the first two Mark Steyn)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRgUulTv8og&t=1s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCM6e4Aujwo

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

Mr Opinion, granted on the spelling error. Fortunately, Mr Crichton is no longer around to be offended as much as you appear to be.
Mr Crichton did graduate as a doctor and did practice as one. To graduate the medical student must work within hospital environments as such for several years. So yes, he was a fully qualified scientist. And doctor.
The annual insurance premiums as a writer compared to practicing medicine make that an easy choice.
Have you actually read, and understood his point, in how SETI caused global warming?
I have not distorted any facts to suit any particular agenda apart from seeking to place the full story in view.

Jay Cee Ess, don't bother responding to Mr O, there is a rumour going round that he has to pick on even the most innocuous, petty and irrelevant details of any conversation.
He rarely get's it right, thereby making it difficult to have a mature and cohesive debate or discussion.
He, like his running mates, attack the messenger because they have no substance or facts to counter the message.
Anyway, as for the topic title; Are the bushfires a result of climate change?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!

Altrav, thanks for your comment. I had recognised that Mr O and his fellow traveler were of such content and refrained from engaging as it would serve no purpose and as you have said, moved eons away from the original Opinion piece.
Both Green and Opinion have admitted, nay, boasted, that they do not do science as such. This, to me, appears to be a common trait of those fighting for HIGW. As I write this the Extinction Rebellion protestors are locking them selves to the gates of the Queensland Parliament and see this as a legitimate method of claiming the validity of their GW/CC beliefs. Not a Science or Engineering degree or student among them.
Monday nights Media Watch on the ABC certainly had Paul Barry in a lather about how dare anyone in the media question HIGW/CC. He preaches to the likes of Mr's O and G.

Thank you for correcting my spelling of Michael Crichton's name, Mr Opinion, you have managed to win one point against me.

I looked at Michael Crichton's profile on wiki and it said that he dropped out of literature at Harvard and studied biological anthropology instead. He is a frocked scientist. He is also an Doctor of medicine although how he got that I don't know. Wiki said that he dropped out of med school. Perhaps he went back later?

Why don't you test your own convictions and listen to what this brilliant man, who was once a supporter of yours, has to say about HIGW now? One lark may not make a spring, but Michael Crichton is another example of how you are losing support for your views. And the people who are turning away are not dummies, they are smarties. There are a lot of debates on youtube now where well behaved participants and audiences conduct debates on this important topic without screaming at each other.

Here is Michael Crichton and he is an honest, impartial broker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vh4dIkEyfd0&t=385s

And here is is again on the "hockey stick graph

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cecmvYq_91A

As for thinking that you and Max are geniuses, no I definitely don't don't think that at all. I am not aware that Shadow Minister thinks that all Artz Grads are paedophiles, I think he might have been just reflecting the very low opinions most members of the working class have for such people. I think I have only directed one post to you on this topic but I gave up on you immediately when you responded by simply making declarations unsupported by either evidence or reasoned argument. You will have to do a lot better than that.

Max might have been so convinced that he was right that he made absolutist declarations too, But at least he occasionally put up an argument that I could deconstruct and deal with.

LEGO,

To quote Mr 0 - "Arts graduates are pedophiles"

Two can play at that game.