Smelters could require less onsite or offsite emissions by higher recycling rates for scrap metal. I doubt whether green hydrogen could ever economically replace coking coal in steel smelting. Renewables enthusiasts tell us aluminium smelters could use variable power with better insulation of the potlines; again let's wait and see. Synfuel suitable for aircraft seems likely to be triple the price of current jet fuel. Sydney to Melbourne commuters could use a very fast train (perhaps electric) instead of the world's no. 2 air route.

The way to test all this is with CO2 pricing or constraints. Then we'll see what's possible. If it doesn't work out then the economy may have to shrink. The alternative may be 50C summers and annual megafires.

I was wondering to myself this morning, where is Taswegian.

I read your thought out solutions to climate change, but there is a void in your thinking on two levels. I’d like you to address them.

One is why the greater impact of remedying always falls on those who can least afford it, and secondly, why should Australia be involved with those remediations at all when in Global terms, our pollution is insignificant to those countries most responsible for pollution, namely Asian?

Dan

Then fact that equally qualified scientists do disagree means that what is going, and what it is costing people, should have been knocked in the head long ago. The damage that has been done - not by natural climate change itself, but by the scientists who have been wrong in their predictions time after time - is a scandal. The acquiesce of gullible, ignorant politicians is a crime.

Dear Don,

Mate, you really have to stop flogging this dead horse. The physics of AGW is robust, the data supporting it is robust, and besides a few fringe scientists profiting from fossil fuel companies the consensus in the part of the scientific community that matters is robust.

I know there are people like you who won't let the contrarian view go which is fine, just stay out of the way while the rest of us do our bit.

However I will ask whether you have elevated the credentials of your 'hero'?

When you say "And my thanks to and admiration for the late Emeritus Professor Bob Carter" you might get away with a lower case 'e' but he doesn't appear to make the roll at either James Cook University nor the University of Otago.

http://www.otago.ac.nz/study/otago701059.pdf

http://www.jcu.edu.au/alumni/Honorary-Degree-and-Fellowship-Holders

He was cited as being deemed "emeritus fellow and science policy advisor at the Institute of Public Affairs" but the fossil fuel financed IPA is hardly a glowing standard for unbiased scholarship now is it.

Hi Don, I am intrigued by the quote you included and the inferences you drew from it. Please give me a complete reference so I can see the quote in its context.

Sorry, Don, but this game is over!

If we can't use or sell our coal or gas? Then we will need to find something we can use! If that something is cleaner, safer and cheaper than coal, gas and or any of the renewables? Then that's the logical Alternative!

And that logical alternative is MSR thorium. Thorium is so abundant we can never run out of it during the life of the universe.

Moreover, MSR technology can also be tasked with burning nuclear waste. that other folks will pay us annual billions to store.

And we would, but not before we've extracted thousands of years worth of virtually free electricity from it

! Electricity for the arc furnaces that will smelt all manner of metals. And the waste heat can be used to create cheapest ever hydrogen.

Hydrogen that can replace coal in metals smelting.

Electricity so cheap that we can pump water anywhere. And that water will be desalinated, using new deionisation dialysis, that produces 95% potable water for four times less than reverse osmosis!

Nuclear power will enable the production of endlessly sustainable synthetic fuels from seawater! using proven technology!

Graphene highways will enable recharging on the go and allow the new electric vehicles to travel then length and breadth. and that some superconductor can be the core of the cable we use to ship far more energy than we ever sold, to offshore customers and local manufacture, manufacturing for everything/anything for a global market! Making us an energy superpower!

Last but not least is the medical tourism we'd create in annual millions with the bismuth 213 we'd create as a virtually free byproduct of MSR thorium!

I get that the only obstacle is troglobites who will not see! That's all! And every boy and his dog knows who and what they are!
Alan B.

Asking an AGW/climate denialist structured question like 'Why do scientists disagree about climate change?' is like asking 'Why do scholars disagree about the whether or not the Holocaust happened?'

Good article, Don, but it misses two really important points.
1. More important than whether climate change is anthropogenic or not is the question of how should humanity respond to it should current changes in climate be caused by people. In my view, moving quickly to a fossil-fuel-free world will. cause incredible economic and social hardship, especially in developing countries where there is still a billion or so people living in poverty. To go carbon free within 30 years will force significant costs on the entire planet, reversing many of the social benefits gained over the last 200 years when we used fossil fuels to lift global standards of living and quality of life. While climate change will cause some adverse impacts on the planet, they will be far less than the adverse impacts caused by a rush to become carbon free.
2. Global human population will stabilise within 40 years or so - see Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline by Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson - after which global use of natural resources including fossil fuels will also decline as standards of living rise well above poverty levels. This suggests to me that, 100 years from now, a smaller global human population, combined with technological advances, will see CO2 emissions greatly reduce and, with an end to land clearing and the planting of vast areas of forest and other natural vegetation, we will return to global atmospheric CO2 levels that are considered safe by climate scientists. In other words, we will solve the climate change problem 'naturally' without having to decarbonise the global economy.

If we still owned our coal and gas plus all the profits and tax liabilities that eschewed from them, I'd look favourably at some of the pro-coal and gas arguments. As for the jobs, resources extraction create? Thorium, lithium, beryllium, nickel, molybdenum and copper still need to be mined and refined!

Energy can be exported as raw electricity in superconductor, graphene cored cables. And for far superior returns than any of the above! Unless we sell it/them off, like everything else that earns a quid!

One could and should ask, what's climate change got to do with it?

But looming carbon tariff barriers!? Everything! Plus the fact very soon we won't be able to give away our coal, oil and gas!

Refusing to accept the new and long resisted reality, just doesn't work for us!

Time to jettison the old (turd on a blanket) arguments for coal, oil and gas and all those who spruik them! If we listen we will be caught with our pants down and looking like a turtle on its back flailing in the midday sun.

I mean it's not like we need to transition tomorrow! But have a decade to transition to what will take us into the next century and the one beyond that!

Failure to do just that will leave us with stranded assets and unpalatable sovereign risk! Moreover, the transition can create far more well-paid jobs than those we lose!

We need folks with vision at the helm, not those with vested or kowtowing to powerful conflicting interest, who will die in a ditch first, before we get some sanity back into the energy debate.

We're currently throwing billions into the economy, just to prop it up, when some of those billions could be used to kickstart much of the above and cooperative capitalism! If you can't or won't help with that, then get outta the way!
Alan B.

DD I'm sure there were a few battlers among the 3,000 homes lost in the January fires. That's when Penrith hit 48.9C. Too bad for frail people in older homes. Asbestos miners lost their jobs but somehow found other occupations. Ditto coal miners.. if they're earning $250k like the bloke who complained to Morrison they should put some money aside.

FWIW I think gas will be essential to help phase out coal. With or without carbon tax gas will be expensive by 2030 that's when small nuclear can do the load following task. Just don't let dreamers stop that happening

Exactly Mr O, exactly!
Alan B.

Having found the publication and the names of the sponsoring body, the writer of the foreword and the names of the authors I have no faith in the conclusions that the publication claimed.
Any publication supported by the Heartland Institute, with a foreword written by the leader of Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy and written by 3 well-known climate deniers is not a credible reference in a discussion of climate change.

Even if scientists did not disagree about climate change, nothing would necessarily follow as a matter of policy.

In order to justify any given climate policy, there would still be a need for some rational method to take account of the relevant human evaluations in the policy versus no-policy scenarios.

The mere unstated assumption that government is all-knowing, all-caring, and all-competent is simply not good enough. It has no basis in reality or reason.

And it is not a requirement of "science" that skeptics must swallow down that assumption as a precondition of entering into the discussion. Yet in the final analysis that is all the warmist argument ever amounts to.

Since the purpose of the exercise is 'ecologically sustainable development', and since that is defined to extend indefinitely into the future, therefore the knowledge problem concerns all relevant human evaluations *indefinitely into the future* for *both* the policy versus no-policy scenarios.

Even if they did, they would still need to figure out the value of the discount for futurity, a critical scientific datum of which the "scientists" are blissfully unaware.

Needless to say, they do not have, and are not capable of having such knowledge, nor rational method.

And then, even if they had all that, and even if the end result showed without bias and corrupt rent-seeking - which is legion - that the status quo is on balance against human welfare, they would still have no rational method of reconciling any given climae policy, back to the ultimate human welfare criterion, however they define it. (Note this is not a problem of mere difference of opinion with their critics. It's a probem of intrinsic self-contradiction.)

Also, unless the alarmists are going to argue that governments have no interest in the topic, then all and any "science" produced by governments' interested dependants is presumptively invalid for conflict of interest. Merely imploring blind faith in government is not good enough.

The result is a complete failure of justification for any climate policy.

Taswegian

None of your examples relevant to social impact of knee jerk government policies, more designed to placate an elitist cohort in the wealthy suburbs, in a panic over an unproved science of climate change.

Laying the blame for recent bushfires on climate change, as you did, doesn’t cut the mustard either.

There are multiple factors outside of climate change which add up to a more holistic view of bushfires and their causes.

Forest management is pretty much agreed, the top of the list.
Slack planning on a local government level, allowing development to progress into dangerous bush areas with inadequate escape paths, and little to none regulation on clear fell zines around dwellings. is also a major cause towards the disaster they caused.

Also, all but a tiny minority of fires were blamed on lightning strikes from dry storms.
Storms are an event spanning a billion years. Nothing to hang your coat on with that one.

Regarding the extreme heat in the Western suburbs of Sydney, the greatest aggravation for that is sprawling development and changes to topography of ground cover, causing dangerous increases in temperature previously covered in grass land.
Again the fault of a government policy not climate change.

as for the poor old pensioner struggling through blistering summer heat you evidenced, most likely that pensioner is unable to utilise cooling technology because of excessive price hikes in power bills, and an inability to compensate for them with taxpayer subsidised solar power on the roof they don’t own. This is the cohort being neglected by government policy that keeps the power bills of the wealthy at very low levels; no pain to them as they agitate for more crippling policy towards exaggerated climate change amelioration.

And question two, what about that one?

Dan

Criticism from all the usual leftie " swingers from the 60's"... eh Don,?.. well done!

"Respect" as Ali G would say. They are the luddites, tree huggers (what did the trees do to deserve such abuse?), Gaia mis interpreters, Klimate Khange Kulists worshippers and childish with they slurs and distain.

Just ignore them, as won would do with a dog turd, let then dry out, shrivel up and scrape them off your boots, that's what I do!

Dear Alison Jane,

Of course you ignore. You have to. You can't engage in any meaningful manner because your cupboard is bare. As a head in the sand denier you have no cogent arguments to put, no rational avenue to make your case.

So you are left projecting about dog turds. Rather apt because that is what your posts really have become, things to step around if you see them in time.

SteeleRedux,

Please have pity on Alison Jane.

She is angry because she never got to do Latin and German at university level, where it really counts.

"Of course you ignore. You have to. You can't engage in any meaningful manner because your cupboard is bare. As a head in the sand denier you have no cogent arguments to put, no rational avenue to make your case" SR.

Wow SR you describe your every post to a "T". Some day you could actually insert some fact into one of your posts, & we would all swoon.

Why do scientists disagree about climate change, because only some of them got a seat on the global warming gravy train.

97% of the scientific community says that the current adverse climate is being caused by anthropogenic global warming produced by the burning of fossil fuels.

The other 3% disagrees. And this is the group the AGW / climate deniers want us to believe.

If this leaves you puzzled you can take comfort in the fact that you're not the only one.

Dear Hasbeen,

That gravy train projection is really very misdirected isn't it.

Just like the doctors who said smoking wasn't a hazard to your health anti-AGW scientists are more than adequately sponsored by the big fossil fuel companies. That is where the real gravy train exists.

The reason why AGW scepticism is so proportionally rife among the geologist community is because so many of them rely on their livelihoods from mining.

There certainly isn't that much money in climate science in comparison.

So perhaps you might park that meme for a bit.

Mr Opinion "97% of the scientific community says that the current adverse climate is being caused by anthropogenic global warming produced by the burning of fossil fuels."
You need to take a closer look at that figure.
Virtually every scientist in the world agrees that climate is changing. To not do so would require that there were never any ice ages, medieval warm period or little ice age. Most scientists also believe that humans are contributing something to this change, though by how much varies greatly. The main points of discrepancy are firstly, is this warming dangerous? and secondly, if it is dangerous, what is the solution?
There seems no reason to believe that a warmer climate is a less productive climate. in fact the opposite is likely true. Higher carbon dioxide concentrations lead to a richer environment, increased plant growth and less need for water for plant growth.
One thing that is obvious to me is that it is the wealthier countries who are able to protect their environments whilst the poorer countries have little choice but to destroy theirs. This pattern was true for the Western world and remains true for the developing world today. I suspect that slowing down economic growth due to high energy costs is likely to be far more harmful to the environment than increased carbon dioxide concentrations. Certainly Byorn Lombourg would agree with me there.

Rhys Jones,

My dog knows the climate is in constant flux. So does my neighbour's cat and the chimpanzee at the local zoo.

Goodness gracious, even Barnaby Joyce and Tony Abbott know it.

We all know it!

But it is knowing when it is not natural that counts. That's what sets me apart from you, my dog, the neighbour's cat, the chimpanzee, and Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce.

This just reeks of entitlement. As Thureau quipped , what use a home without an inhabitable planet. What use a smelter if we're all dead ?

That aside, as a counter to this rubbish here's an interesting interview

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3DHJa-IH3I&feature=emb_logo

Valley Guy,

It's too late to turn back the clock on AGW / climate.

Action should have started in the 1960/70s.

Even if the world ceased used fossil fuels today it will be too late to prevent the planet from getting so hot that it will result in disastrous weather patterns everywhere.

Its too late, it should have been started in the 1960s and 1970s. You really are ignorant, elitists woke plonkers. In the 1970's the green meanies and the Sierra Club, C of Rome were forecasting ice ages, acid rain and nuclear winters withy the 20th century.

Time you guys moved on and like A Cortez stopped living in you ego induced land of lollipops and rainbows, where the 'dream time' fantasy world has addled what little grey matter you ever had.

Hippo weekend and go do something productive on a bootiful sunny spring weekend, you plonkers!

My, my, the denial of reality is staggering!

Higher CO2 atmospheric concentration equals higher temperatures.
Higher temperatures equals higher water vapour atmospheric concentrations.
Higher water vapour atmospheric concentrations equals higher temperatures.
Higher temperatures equals higher water evaporation rates from the environment.
Higher evaporation rates from the environment means even higher water vapour atmospheric concentration and equals higher temperatures and equals loss of available water in dams, rivers, lakes, farm dams, soils and forests, and so equals loss in the environment overall.
Higher temperatures and higher evaporation rates equals drier flora, drier ground-cover, increased leaf-fall from trees, shrubs and vines, and so equals greater fire risk and produces greater fire intensities.

The solution to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels is to increase plant-life ground-cover by improved environmental management including by enhanced freshwater-usage, enhanced agriculture and forest and environmental restoration and rehabilitation, more and bigger dams and lakes and secure water-course management and usage.

These measures will reduce atmospheric CO2 and water vapour concentrations, and thereby reverse temperature increase in the environment and the resultant attendant hazards - including fire risk.

Problem solved; argument ended; mania averted.

"my dog, the neighbour's cat, the chimpanzee, and Tony Abbott and Barnaby Joyce". all know the climate is changing, Mr O

Yes true, but unlike those with an arts education, they are smart enough to know it is not caused by CO2.

Succinctly put Hasbeen, as ever. But when religions and cuts are driving belief, this plonkers just can't see it..

One day their grand kids will say , NOT

"Thank you Grandpapi for your fight against C02" and

instead say,

"what drugs were your on... none?... you guys were plonkers!"

Alison Jane / Hasbeen,

The world scientific community and the world's leading politicians and an increasing number of transnational corporations now recognise that adverse climate change is being caused by anthropogenic global warming produced by the burning of fossil fuels.

AGW / climate deniers like you two with your refusal to accept the truth are now being looked upon increasingly as a cancer to life on Earth.

I personally see you deniers as being comparable to the Holocaust deniers who refuse to accept that the Holocaust ever took place.

Any one who needs to rely on politicians and "leading scientists" who are defined by the money they get from politicians…. you need a mirror mate and some time to think.

Enjoy the weekend and the wonderful world we live in, rather that follow the dogmatic cult of CCC/KKK.

I went to Don Aiken's siteand looked at the comments.
The first one stopped me, something I have never seen previously;

Mike Dinn
November 4, 2020 at 8:52 am

My problems start with how to define the temperature of the planet.
I can’t see any credible or meaningful way to do this. Certainly not
in terms of degrees, let alone tenths of degrees.
But if a definition could be agreed, how can actual, meaningful
measurements be made, and melded in some sensible manner?
How could you even measure the temperature of Canberra?
Using the max or min or simple (meaningless) average? Ground level or
some other height? Over grass, concrete? Near buildings?
So for me, any other assertions re global warming are meaningless,
especially when extrapolation for 80 years or more are made

As I said, I have never seen that point made previously.
So can someone who is betting all our welfare on global warming
please explain to me just how it is done ?

Dear Alison Jane,

You on the turps again?

You seem to be equating the quite modest scientist's salary compared to what the fossil fuel giants spend on disinformation.

Why do you think that is? I will tell you, you are a patsy, another one who does the dirty work for them for absolutely zero pay. You go willingly into these forums to spread their crap while they sit there counting their billions and laughing at you.

Well as long as it gives you an inflated sense of your worth I suppose there is something of benefit to you.

Enjoy.

Dear Bazz,

Really?

All Mike Dimm and yourself had to do was go and google the bloody thing.

Try this site and get back to me with any questions.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-do-scientists-measure-global-temperature

SteeleRedux,

You are wasting your breath.

AGW / climate deniers do not want to know how the scientific community comes to their conclusions.

They need to see it before they will believe it because they are incapable of critical thought plus they will also be motivated by the fact that they are usually religious, are politically conservative, are dependent on the fossil fuel industry, etc.

Swamp donkey,

Considering that you don't have a clue about the science of climate change it is wildly hypocritical to claim the same about others.

Anyone that has an inkling of physics and chemistry would understand that there are many factors involved in controlling the atmospheric temperature including:

CO2 absorption by the oceans.
Heat reflection by the clouds, land and ice.
Heat reflection due to atmospheric SO2 and other gases

etc

The combination of all these effects caused the original estimates to be so wide (highest estimate was near 10x the lowest) that the claim that the temperature change is within estimates is pretty much an oxymoron.

The climate activists have essentially shot themselves in the foot by taking the worst-case scenarios as gospel and then being surprised when they aren't taken seriously

shadowminister, your talking to an audience of troll here who boast about their intellect and supreme understanding handed down to them by the Great Computer " Deep Throat" ( see Hitchhikers Guide to Universe)and its GCMs.

They are "Klimate Khange Kultists", what else can you expect. Glad to see a fellow who understands enough real science, to understand how little we know, and how complex the real ( not modelled) world is.

Alison Jane and shadyminister,

It's obvious you both love belonging to the AGW / climate denial camp so I'm not going to argue with you about something you believe in so deeply.

I don't debate the science because I'm not a scientist. I'm a scholar and as such my interests are in the Arts things like history, anthropology, sociology, archaeology, philosophy, etc. All the stuff in which you two don't have any training and knowledge.

Swamp donkey,

It is obvious that you are a shameless liar.

"SteeleRedux,

You are wasting your breath" Mr O.

Of course he is. The old navy saying that "bulldust baffles brains" was once very true. However we have had so so much bulls*1t pumped into the air & the MSM by scamming warmists that even the village idiot can recognise the kind pushed by gravy train riders & their useful idiots like SR & MrO.

Do save your breath boys, the planet & the low sun are about to make you obvious to all, the fools you are.

shadyminister,

Since when did telling the truth make one into a liar?

Hasbeen,

You are aware that with AGW / climate you will not be able to eat your cake and have it too?

Dear shadowminister,

You write: "The climate activists have essentially shot themselves in the foot by taking the worst-case scenarios as gospel and then being surprised when they aren't taken seriously".

What?

The IPCC has always erred on the side of caution and as a consequence their predictions have always lagged behind what has happened on the ground. I take them very seriously, why don't you?

Because he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

Shadowminister ..."I say old Chap", do you think thes "self labelled scholars "who admit they are not scientists are ,.... what's the word PLONKERS!

Perhaps these plonkers believe they are in fact Free thinking elitests... or maybe just modern day hitler youth surrogates...

I think Whitlam has a big case to answer for in his millennia in purgatory for allowing them all to have free access to university with no qualifications and no payment of fees ... like we had to do or get a scholarship for good work!!

SR,

I don't consider the IPCC climate activists and accept most of their measurements. What I don't accept is the interpretation of this by the extremists like that retarded teen Greta teaming up with the morons in extinction rebellion etc.

Most of the issues I have is the means and methods of addressing AGW. Something the poorly educated Swamp donkey can't grasp.

shadowminister,

Again with the retard slur.

What evidence do you have that her IQ is less than 67? Especially when it is patently obvious she is of above average intelligence, able to converse proficiently in two languages with abilities in several others.

Unless you are classifying Aspergers sufferers as retarded despite there being many famous and high functioning individuals who have been diagnosed with it.

What in your upbringing allows you to be slagging off of a teenager like you are? Boorish, uncouth and a grave discredit to you.

SR,

Asperger syndrome (AS), also known as Asperger's, is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behaviour and interests.

retarded:- less advanced in mental, physical, OR social development than is usual for one's age.

Even a super sensitive liberal can see that the definitions correlate.

As for her IQ, you tell me. While she has virtue signalling and an angry scowl down pat, I fail to see significant signs of mental acuity.

shadyminister,

It just dawned on me what your problem is.

You're jealous of Greta Thunberg because she is an achiever.

And you're just an engineer.

I understand your position because the reason I did my three Arts degrees following getting a BE was because like you I too did not want to be seen as being just an engineer.

Swamp Donkey,

Being retarded is a prime qualification for doing a BA to graduate in Burger flipping.

Amazing, Mr Opinion and Steel Rednuts are even more arrogant than Kamala Harris and sleepy Joe, but I suppose that's wot BA's do ta ya! me old muckesr!, time to move on and troll some other poor author, not that I expect any of them care or head your drivel. nighty night kiddies, don't let the "the Big Bad Orangeman Donald" get you in your safe space!

Alison Jane,

It is obvious from the way you write that you have a lot in common with the shadyminister.

Two peas in a pod I would call it.

shadowminister,

You plucked that from the Lexico site which clearly prefaced the definition with the words "offensive" and "dated" didn't you you dolt.
http://www.lexico.com/definition/retarded

Here is a clinical definition:

"Intelligence quotient (IQ) scores are commonly used to determine whether an individual is mentally retarded. IQ scores between 70 and 79 are in the borderline mentally retarded range. Scores below 67 are in the retarded range. (Joynt, Clinical Neurology, 1992, Ch55, p28)"

Just stop using it in reference to the young woman, it just leaves you looking petty, cowardly and a thoroughly nasty piece of work.

SteeleRedux,

The shadyminister is doing it because he is jealous of Greta Thunberg.

SR,

So what! you moron.

The dictionary definition of retarded fits Greta like a glove. That it winds you up is an added bonus.

When you go all PC it makes you look a snivelling, and small-minded grouch. Perhaps you could pull your finger out as it is clearly disturbing your piles.

shadowminister,

Doesn't wind me up in the slightest. That wasn't the point of my response at all. It is all about showing just how nasty, juvenile, small minded and bigoted you and your side of politics have become.

That you feel it is okay as a grown man to be offensively labeling a young teenager speaks volumes about your character and just how debased you and your ilk have become.

I am more than happy to shine a light on the progressing degeneracy in decency of the Right in this country. You are a shining example.

SteeleRedux,

It's easy to see that the shadyminister is just an engineer.

I bet he flies off the handle when his wife can't remove all of the grease from his overalls when she's doing the washing.

SR,

Just stop being such a disgruntled old fart.

Since Saint Greta is unlikely to read this thread so the only reason for you to take offence is to virtue signal. Since you are too cowardly and degenerate to admit your own motivations I will continue to call out the retarded teen for what she is.

shadyminister,

Just to let you know, I am reading this thread on behalf of Greta and I am reporting everything you have said to Greta.

shadowminister,

Once again you are labouring under a misapprehension.

I am not offended on her behalf at all because as you said she is unlikely to read any of this, I'm just offended by you and your ilk and am calling out your degeneracy. Go read some of the stuff you were posting even 5 years ago. It seems Trump and Bolt and the rest of the puffed up bullies if the right have ripped the scab off your lesser nature and you have let fly.

I will continue to call it out.

SR,

My poor delicate flower. Are my words hurting you and bringing out your Tourettes?

What a sanctimonious prick! As you are almost always the one to start abusing others perhaps you should wind your neck in for a change.

shadowminister,

No, you used abusive language toward Greta Thumberg by calling her a retard.

I quite clinically returned the favour.

Why are you saying I started it when that is patently untrue.

You dished it out and I returned it in equal measure. Why do you think that is in anyway unfair?

This is the way bullies react when it comes back at them.

Suck it up you sook.

SR

Now you are just lying to cover up your sociopathic tendencies.

As pointed out before I never used the epithet "retard" (an insult derived from the adjective retarded) and your abuse was not only entirely unwarranted but extreme.

As I pointed out in any exchange between us you as far as I can remember you are always the first to sling abuse. On this site, you are cantankerous, abusive and vulgar.

SteeleRedux,

I think the shadyminister has it in for Greta Thunberg in much the same way that the English had it in for Joan of Arc.

If the AGW / climate denialists ever got to strap Greta to the stake I'm sure the shadyminister would be at the head of the line ready to toss a torch onto the pyre.

I can just see the shadyminister watching the flames leap up towards Greta as he screams 'Burn you AGW witch!"

Swamp donkey,

Are you off your meds?

shadyminister,

You've gone and done it again you quick witted bastard you!

What's your secret shady?

If you could bottle it you would be a millionaire!

Shadowminister,

More slippery than a butcher's dick mate. This was the definition you paraphrased without including the 'offensive' preface.

“ADJECTIVE dated, offensive Less advanced in mental, physical, or social development than is usual for one's age.”

You were the one who started slagging off in this thread up to which our exchange had been cordial.

I think you will find you have been purposefully offensive in many threads before I have bitten back. If there is an example where this hasn't been the case then I would ike to hear it.

SR,

You are more slippery than Greta's --.

You are claiming that because I say something that offends you (a very low bar) that it gives you the right to become abusive. You taking offence and being abusive are two very different things and either you realise that or you are retarded.

As I said, you are the first to be abuse as I can recall which is far worse than being offensive.

shadowminister,

Rubbish.

You engaged in cruel and demeaning language directed at a teenager. It was under any definition abusive. You have obviously been so offended by her that you have resorted to said abusive language but are somehow claiming victim status? What a crock.

Somehow you think your political stance on a topic justifies that abuse. It doesn't.

And mate, all I do is reflect your language back at you. If you don't like it there is a simple way to pull it up.

SR,

Now you are just lying to try and weasel out of admitting that you are an abusive troll.

I cannot be abusing St Greta the retarded if she is oblivious to what I say. You are taking offence and in turn, being abusive.

I recommend that you see someone about your sociopathic tendencies.

shadyminister,

If I ever get around to writing a sociology of engineering I'm definitely using you as a case study.

You are a full blown engineer for certain!

shadowminister,

Dear me.

If that is your argument then given I don't know who you are, nor I assume do other posters here, how on earth do you feel you directing your vile offensive abuse at a known person is in anyway comparable to me giving some anonymous figure on some forum on a corner of the internet a bit of a serve?

It doesn't you snowflake.

Bloody hell I am getting real jack of your lot's constant carping on about how victimised you all are.

Give it a rest.

StillRetarded,

You poor delicate petal. I feel sorry that you don't have the IQ to cope with the difference between a slight against an uninvolved 3rd party and direct personal abuse.

A hint should be that OLO treats them differently.

That you choose to be vile and offensive as your first response to pretty much everything should be an indicator that you have some behavioural issues

shadyminister,

You being unhappy about being just an engineer is no excuse to be vindictive.

It's your fault that you are just an engineer and don't know anything about the Arts things like history, sociology, anthropology, archaeology, philosophy, etc.

Get over it and move on.

shadowminister,

The hint should be that your post about SHY was deleted because you said some highly offensive things about her personally.

The true crux is that you lot want the free speech that allows you to attack a young teenager but when it is directed back at you you sook up.

This is purely and simply the main reason I take the approach I do. If you want to constantly use offensive language then I'm more than happy to serve it back. Note you initiated it in this thread as always.

By the way I'm not being offensive to you personally because I don't know you from a bar of soap. I am directing my replies to your online anonymous entity which is a very unpleasant creature.

Stillretarded,

Since you are such a delicate petal and still regard the vaguest slight against any left whinge icon as an excuse to initiate a tirade of abuse, as you did on this thread, I wonder whether you also suffering from arseburgers syndrome

shadyminister,

I just worked it out.

You're not human ........... You are a computer generated answering machine.

shadowminister,

Why am I the delicate petal mate? I have not reacted to anything you have called me, not said a word about your juvenile use of derivations of my forum name, and I have purposefully tried to use inclusive phrasing like 'you and your ilk'.

All I have done is stand up for someone who isn't here to defend herself.

You on the other hand have taken it personally and sooked and whinged your way through this conversation like a typical school yard bully who has had his nose tweaked.

Give it a rest. No one is buying you as a victim.

SR,

You can't claim to have never said anything offensive against a 3rd party and unless you accept that you then deserve personal abuse your whole argument falls in a heap.

I said something mildly offensive against a mentally challenged teen and you initiated a tirade of personal abuse which was at least extremely childish and extremely sookish.

If you can't control yourself then don't get defensive when others retaliate.

shadowminister,

You say: "then don't get defensive when others retaliate"

Where have I got defensive about any retaliation from you? I simply haven't. Not a single reaction to any barb you have sent my way even though much of it was decidedly low brow as usual ("Perhaps you could pull your finger out as it is clearly disturbing your piles").

I have purely reacted to your demeaning attacks on someone who isn't here to defend themselves.

Get over it.

SR,

Who are you kidding, you sooked up like retarded teen girl.

Considering that 99.9999% of the world's population is not here to defend themselves the argument that you have to be the nit in shining armour to defend their honour is stupid beyond belief.

The argument implies that each time you insult say Trump or those Jewish peoples you loathe, you are deserving of all the abuse you receive.

shadowminister,

Again where in this thread have 'I got defensive about any retaliation from you? I simply haven't. Not a single reaction to any barb you have sent my way even though much of it was decidedly low brow as usual'?

I haven't bothered to call out a single one of your personal attacks directed at me because unlike you I really don't take offence. However I'm more than happy to continue reacting to the debased language you lot have gotten yourselves in the habit of using.

Now dry your eyes mate and stop calling foul when you get just a modicum of the bile you direct at others returned in kind. It is so childish.

Sookretarded,

There you go again getting all defensive again. It looks like while you are happy to dish out abuse on a whim, getting served back throws you in a tizzy. How old are you? 5? or maybe you are in your second childhood?

"Sookretarded"

Lol.

Enough said.

Yup,

Gets it in one.