Ah, “What mighty contests rise from trivial things.” (Alexander Pope)

My apologies JayB, but as some of us are accused of being, let’s see, “A hate-filled sink of irrelevance, desperately clinging to a medieval status quo to protect the vested interests of the greed merchants and their gratuitous carnage of the Earth’s fragile ecosystems”, on the basis of a missed quotation mark (“), one feels some need to respond. I agreed with Q&A that ‘acknowledge and move on’ was all that was required, but as Portaloo has turned it into a poop-throwing fit, I think I’ll press on, and give her all the rope she needs.

“Error 1: “Fungo, to perpetuate mischief, has conveniently ignored Q&A’s opening to the quotation:”

Wrong. And I can’t even work out how you believe you could prove such a stupid claim. As I clearly said, I understood the first paragraph to be the words of Walter, as introduced by Q&A. You seem very confused about the trivial issue in question.

“Error 2: “Since the advent of the computer, paragraph indentations have not been used, therefore it is no longer customary. Indents are redundant and obsolete...”

Wrong again. As just one example, I have in front of me a simple essay writing guide from La Trobe University from 2007 – a short while after the advent of the computer:

“Quotations of more than 40 words are displayed in a freestanding block of typewritten lines. The block is indented to the position of the indent for a new paragraph. They are not enclosed by quotation marks”

A quick jump to the webpage of formatting guidelines for RMIT’s Centre for Applied Social Research gave me this:

“11. Quotations of more than three lines should be indented without quotation marks”

Would you like me to go on? As far as I understand, this is universal practice, but I have already shown you to be wrong.

(I reiterate, I am not suggesting Q&A should have written in this format here, or accusing him of anything, as I naturally would be by Proctosis, …

Cont..

…but when one is used to customary formats, I feel it is an easy slip to make in the reading, and Spindoc, who has so graciously given an unqualified apology, clearly did so too.)

“Error 3: “On initial readings?” Give us a break. It is correct about the quotation marks being used at paragraph beginnings, however, Professor Walter’s transcript was provided by Q&A to support the quote. Neither Spindoc or Fungo read it but then truth is the enemy of ammo-seeking eco-terrorists, is it not?

I confess I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about here. I thought the transcript was the quote! I read it, and I now see I originally misread it. What crap are you going on with?

You then add: “Fungo’s “initial reading” commenced only after Spindoc’s blunder…”

Wrong again. And, of course, you have absolutely no way of knowing this, but that hasn’t stopped you making any old accusations in the past. I did read the post prior to Spindoc’s response, and can only say that I’m glad I didn’t refer to it in my next post, as I would have made the same slip as Spindoc.

“…and he now uses Q&A’s informed post to further his and Spindoc's malevolent and rancorous attack on those who post only for the common good.”

No I haven’t Portipot. I have made it quite clear what I made of the mistake. It is you who has revealed yourself by turning it into a mountain of poop, which, as I have said, is the bigger issue here about this debate. No mischief, no slimy agenda, no conspiracy. Just your own paranoid delusions. So why should anyone trust you? Now, you could learn from spindoc and apologize for the errors above, which, if I behaved like you, I could turn into mugging old ladies, taking bribes, strangling kittens, or whatever I liked, or you can confirm my point, and continue to drive people away from your strange agenda better than I ever could.

Read your IPCC reports, all 19 of them. The scientists don't even know what shape or form the effects (if any) of this Human CO2 will be exactly. Its possibilities they predicted starting 23 years ago. Now tell me, that is science? And tell me how a policy of precaution is science. It's a silly popular political media bull$hit science and I'm sure Nature herself is laughing right now. Unfortunately it takes a more sophisticated level of insight to recognize this so called science as the social phenomenon that it really is. And unfortunately this mass insanity of what looks like a coming doomsday is manifested in so many ways, social, physiological, political, financial and cultural, so that every believer has carved out their own personal belief system and definition of global warming. You warmies are such evil propagandists that you equate Carbon and CO2 as pollution itself. This sick belief system you warmies have is one that we deniers equipped with real insight can shoot holes through with its Greenzi-like irrationality.
It seems so right though doesn’t it? We are here. We affect here. We must be doing something. We burn. Too much. Too much. BINGO Instant Belief.
It other words if it isn’t right it aught to be?
Global Warming is happening as it has been for millions of years through the little understood process of climate change. Climate change is weather. Pollution is another matter that we should all work to manage so we can PRESERVE, not RESCUE AND SAVE our planet.
History will laugh at the very thought that humans can dictate temperatures of planets with SUV gas and plant food after almost half a century of progressive environmentalism and 23 years of waiting for doomsday with a dead CO2 theory.
Get ahead of the curve because this scam will not go unpunished like the neocon’s Weapons of Mass Destruction scam.

I listened to Kurt Lambeck on ABC the other day.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ockhamsrazor/stories/2009/2589206.htm

Kurt Lambeck is, like Plimer, a geological scientist. He is also the current president of the Australian Academy of Science. He comments on ABC were unusual in that I don't recall seeing one scientist deliver a full broadside to another scientist in the public arena before.

After listening Lambeck's criticisms of Heaven and Earth, I came away with the impression that Plimer deliberately set out to deceive in his book. Had the book been written by someone else, that would not be the case. Selective quoting, twisting words, ignoring later corrections - these are standard tools of the trade for most of us. But for Plimer there is no excuse. A University Professor knows how science is done, and he must of know he was at best distorting the truth.

For example, from Lambeck's comments:

"the book is replete with references. But the choice is very selective."

"Plimer quotes a paper that appears to support his argument, but then he does not mention that the conclusions therein have been completely refuted in subsequent papers."

"he simply misquotes the work or takes it out of context."

"a reference to my own in the Mediterranean where he gives quite a misleading twist to what we actually concluded."

Eclipse Now, I’ve no idea why you’ve challenged me to prove or disprove scientific matters related to climatology, I have no professional qualifications in this subject. Many do have qualifications on both sides of the debate and should be listened to.

Curiously, the most vocal in the public domain seem to have no formal qualifications. More curious still is that having no qualifications in the science does not prevent many from abusing others for not sharing their opinion.

I have no problem with experts debating with non experts in any forum, I do however feel that those with qualifications should not trivialize or abuse those of us who are well meaning, interested or even dedicated amateurs. I think we just need to get more balance and less vilification into the debate. Those who are qualified are privileged and should not abuse that advantage.

Many feel the debate has not been open an honest or that we have even had any meaningful debate. Unfortunately those not yet convinced don’t get much of a hearing.

So when I asked if you had and formal qualifications in climatology or related sciences, I was trying to determine if you were qualified to take a strong stance on the subject.

So in answer to your follow up question, “why do I have to be qualified”, the answer is you don’t. If however, you wish to promote yourself as understanding matters as a qualified scientist, you are going to be very short on credibility.

Like most of those with an opinion on this subject, we have borrowed it from some other person. We chose the opinion of one scientist over that of another. We do this because we are not equipped to make a scientific judgment of our own. Welcome to W.M.I.D.A. Club. (Well Meaning, Interested, Dedicated Amateurs).

“Quotations of more than 40 words are displayed in a freestanding block of typewritten lines. The block is indented to the position of the indent for a new paragraph. They are not enclosed by quotation marks”

Tut tut silly me. OK - indented quotations for OLO's informal letter writers from now on. Throw in the Italics as well eh?

But first fungus-face, since you raised the issue of indented quotations for OLO users, could you give we plebs a lesson on how to indent quotations on the OLO computer system? If not, why not?