GK,

"...they only quote, or read articles or papers that are from one side of the Climate Change argument...."

How remiss of us to only quote articles and papers from people who are actually qualified and have expertise in the disciplines associated with climate science.

I see you are advocating that we expand our repertoire to include the myriad hacks who have merely a smattering of knowledge and no formal training in the area.

Would you advise people go to their florist to have their teeth attended to?

Na Belly old mate. It won't effect the election.

All those who still believe in global warming are all ready Labor voters, or Green voters giving their preference to labor.

When you think about that, there is an interesting thread in why Labor/green voters still "believe" when the rest have woken up.

I suppose we have those who have spent too much time & public money in universities, gathering letters after their name, they'll believe anything they're told to, as we often see here.

Apart from them, it is an interesting question.

Dear geoffreykelley,

In a nutshell, plagiarism is STEALING.

I'm sure no one on OLO would steal someone else's ideas and pass them off as their own. Or would they? So come on all you plagiarists, own up now and we will forgive you. (Actually I stole that promise from a plagiarist I once knew. So please don't hold me to it because it really isn't mine to give away.)

GK,

You appear to be inordinately fond of "politicising" the climate debate. You regularly prefix your comments with a few lines extolling your penchant for right-wing politics.

You're the guy who luxuriates in the political aspect of the debate.

Why are you banging on about plagarisation?

99.9 percent of commenters here acknowledge or link to their sources.

Poirot, there are many scientists who do not believe the science of the pro AGW. Would you discount their evidence because of your political beliefs? There are commentators on both sides of the argument who are not trained scientists who actually contribute to the debate. On your side you have luminaries such as Flannery, and dare I mention the Nobel Prize winning idiotic former US Vice-President Al Gore, who among other things once claimed to have invented the Internet?

A non-scientist I applaud is Christopher Monckton who has been a political adviser to the UK gov't on climate change, so is equally well versed in the debate, as well as some science. He only comments on science he has evaluated.

Whilst you are at it, do you have any views on plagiarism? Are you ‘for it’ or ‘against it’? Where is your moral compass set on this question?

Geoffrey Kelley

Dear GK,

Christopher Monckton is a crackpot!

If there was a Land of Crackpots he would be the King of Crackpots.

The question we need to explore is why people like him are in denial. It's sort of like a doctor telling someone they have cancer and they refuse to accept it.

By the way, did you know that John Howard is a climate change skeptic?