Dear bonmot,

<<NOT agnostic>>? As I’ve just written to our PM. “

“The only resolution to this vexatious and divisive debate is to firstly test the science. A public inquiry including evidence from both advocacy and skeptical science should be held. Following the published results, any government has a duty to seek a mandate for such serious and long term impacts upon the Australian community and economy”.

Why would anyone in their right minds seek to deny that this is not an agnostic perspective or that the Australian public should be denied democracy?

That I have been <<been vilifying and denigrating the mainstream>> on OLO. Ah so! “Interesting grasshopper”. So the warmertariat is now “mainstream”? Ooops!

<<Yes, there is imbecilic anger out there>>

So those who are angry are “imbeciles”?

Why are these Australians angry bonmot? Could it be that they feel cheated? Are being sacrificed upon the altar of compromise? Are feeling disenfranchised? Are feeling that we are being denied democracy? That the independents have in some way disappointed their electorates? That the current administration did not have a mandate for such policies? Or that Australia is rapidly becoming ungovernable?

I don’t condone death threats under any circumstances; they are against every tenet of my personal values, anti-democratic and symptoms of sickness and dysfunctional thinking.

You suggest that <<“elected representatives are receiving death threats (and more) from your so called "disenfranchised">>.

bonmot, for you to suggest that “MY” disenfranchised are responsible for these death threats is delusional. What you really mean is any member of the Australian electorate that does not share your views is responsible. Have I been “quiet” enough for you on this?

Some might reasonably take the view that your lack of grip on reality and your outrageous belligerence are not balanced by your audacity.

When next you sit at your computer, just remember this, Rio Tinto, does not actually “mine” computers, wind farms, electric cars or solar panels, they are a product of industrial production and have a massive carbon dioxide foot print. Unless of course, you know different?

Show us the link with C02.

Oh wow, spindoc … you’ve just written to the PM.
Can we look forward to you posting her response to you right here, on this thread?

Of course, as a true agnostic, you would have also written to the opposition leader. Asking inter alia, why he and his partisans think it’s “crap”? Or why (if it's crap) does he have a climate change policy?

Ok, you can’t tell the difference between mainstream science and your brand of post-normal internet armchair pseudo-science. I can accept that (with the exclamation back-at-ya).

“Yes, there is imbecilic anger out there.” >> So those who are angry are “imbeciles”? <<

You really do literally spin it. Try learning some grammar and English usage … it helps comprehension and makes dialogue with people much easier.

Show you the link, spindoctor?
View your own OLO history - many commenters have shown you, various links. Just because you put your thumbs in your ears, your fingers in your eyes, and scream in denial of the science, does not mean you haven’t been shown links ... you have been, numerous times.

The rest of your post is condescending shill; it does not entertain a respectful response.

"Oh wow, spindoc … you’ve just written to the PM."

Good luck with that. It will sit there unread for weeks and then be referred to the relevant department.

If you want something done or to get a response the best avenue is approach the Independents, the Opposition or sympathetic media. Maybe even start your own blog or group demanding further investigation into (whatever the issue).

Write a petition as any Senator can table it on your behalf:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/work/petitions/petitions.htm

Also use FOI to obtain documents where there may be contrary arguments and advice in the debate and consultations leading up to 'policy'.

I think the input of Tony Windsor has been a shining light in our new Alliance Govt.

Rob Oakeshot also acted with conviction and due consideration when not aligning with the Abbott led Coalition. Their disgraceful gang tactics on Oakeshot, is evidence alone as to why why no thinking person would have, or could have, accepted partnership with such an untrustworthy bunch of whining, extremist, racist, climate change skeptics and generally irrelevant to reality people, that the Federal Feral Coalition opposition have become.

Not even Bob Catter is entirely sure he did the right thing.

Regardless of how I feel about the Labor Party (and I don't), enough is enough,
just elect a new leader Coalition, and clean out the extremist crackpots from your front bench,
Morrison, Bernadi etc, they make me ashamed to be Australian.

Regardless any Coalition Govt for the next term will have to deal with the Greens.

So dreaming of displacing Oakeshot by character assassination, wont make any real difference at all, and indicates the level of intellect we are dealing with here.

Thinker2,

RO is supposed to represent the interests of his constituents. By their reaction he has clearly not done so, and subsequent antics such as a desire for a cabinet seat or speaker has shown that it was done primarily for self interest.

His bait and switch tactics will follow him forever, and I doubt he could get elected dog catcher after this.

Windsor who has shown more restraint is also polling very badly in his constituency that he has led for a long time, and is scheduled for retirement in 2013 whether he planned to or not.

That is a really unfortunate gloat SM.

I don't think it matters to Windsor, whether he survives 2013 or not, as long as he gets something done before that. So far he's showing all the signs of a conviction politician. It isn't about power for this guy!. I'm just glad his intellect is part of the Gov't we have.

What a brave and fine new world we are experiencing, in the new Australian political landscape. One where a range of views are heard.

Better get used to it SM, I for one am liking it.