Mr Opinion,

You have more than one undergraduate degree so I should be jealous of you? How sad, I was hoping for a witty riposte or some inkling of an IQ, not such a juvenile retort.

I don't believe you have any undergraduate degree. I question whether you have finished school.

Poirot,

I have always acknowledged the part played by humans in AGW, however, as coming from a science background I find the certainty presented by alarmists in the news in stark contrast to the more cautious approach in scientific journals such as scientific American and new scientist.

Perhaps I could have chosen a better source, but it is not the only place I have seen this. Also I have seen that sea level rises are far lower than predicted.

Similarly, Labor's claims that the carbon tax will do anything for global warming without international action is complete BS. So far Aus has the most extreme carbon tax, and almost no one else is doing more than tokenism.

My Dear Poirot,

Try not to be so sensitive! I did not "....... paste the rest of us with it - and if you do, you had better provide examples as evidence."

I made a general point. You are very quick to defend "the 'hood' (the sisterhood) so you intimated your prime candidate was male, but I was not gender specific. I simply commented that many posts have plagiarised quotes that constitute most of the post and I think it is immoral. The prime candidate I am referring to is a prolific poster.

Furthermore, you do not have to warn me that I had better be prepared to give examples of evidence. I have already offered to do so but have desisted to give the guilty party an opportunity to reform without me embarrassing her.

Poirot, you really should read my posts more carefully, or be more analytical in your assessment of my statements. You said in an earlier post, “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.” In my opinion the debate is highly politicised, especially by the Labor supporters. Your side labels me a ‘denier’ and a ‘skeptic’, often uttered with all the bile spewed at a child molester! I don’t mind these labels because show a general ignorance of scientific method. But the labels are clearly politically motivated.

As a Liberal voter I am content that Abbott and his team do not take AGW as seriously as the ALP. After all, that is why I will vote for Abbott. I could not tolerate Turnbull as the leader of the Liberal Party. Since I am commenting on the politics I always state my own position politically. I find it laughable that ALP supporters and rabid socialists don’t like the labels they append to themselves! I am not ashamed of my position, so I make it clear where I stand. If I were ashamed I might also object to others labeling me a right-winger, LOL.

Geoffrey Kelley

Geoffrey Kelley

Earlier there was a discussion on Chutzpah. The definition I like the most is descriptive. A man found guilty of murdering his parents throws himself on the mercy of the court because he is an orphan!

Recently I saw a comment made by an alarmist intimating that wild weather events are caused by AGW and that is why it was so cold in the Northern Hemisphere this winter! I LUV IT!

Geoffrey Kelley

Dear Shadow Minister,

The less you know the better. And I'm sure you have a lifetime of experience in knowing less than everyone else.

Well it seems evident some are unaware of Liberals policy and intention on this issue.
Maybe Abbott too.
He is on record as saying climate change is crap.
And carry s in to this election a policy to reduce emissions by the same target as Labor.
We all see the remark? aimed at me? that climate change believers are all Labor voters in any case!
Not greens? not concerned conservatives? not all the country,s of the world acting now?
Such thought bogs the debate down, concerns are not party wide, even some Labor voters would think it is a fraud.
See poirot is being verballed , by a true Liberal who seems to hold opinions other than his party, proving my point.
This issue, in minor ways has impacted on how some will vote.
It if true, has forecast extreme weather, not just heat but cold, storm and tempest much more than a warming planet, the side effects of a warming planet.
Are we all aware one side of this debate has got it badly wrong.
I can not yet say for sure what side but it is my view ignoring the science weakens the anti global warming sides view.

Dear Shadow
Quote
"Similarly, Labor's claims that the carbon tax will do anything for global warming without international action is complete BS. So far Aus has the most extreme carbon tax, and almost no one else is doing more than tokenism."
End quote

As a country Australia emissions are among the worst of the worst. It is not true that the rest of the world is doing nothing see the map at the link below.

http://globalclimateactionmap.climateinstitute.com.au/#/criteria

China is taking some serious steps to reduce its emissions as proportion of GDP, and are on track to reduce this figure by a significant amount. They are also in the process of introducing a carbon trading scheme, which is to be fully operational by 2018.
The USA has reduced its emissions by around 19% recently and the situation in Europe is quite encouraging