Ian, I have to ask; what makes YOUR submission more valuable than another's?
It was always a stretch for me, I stayed on the fence for a long time, and read and researched, to eventually settle for the truth!
Which was; There appears to be an evil force or group who have sinister plans and intentions, and unlike ALL others, the money to succeed.
But let me not dwell on the social criminality aspect behind this, what I call 'con-job'.
You see Ian the deniers are not denying that the globe is warming, they are denying that we humans had anything to do with it.
So had the, so called experts and scientists, just said, the globe is warming but eventually it will peak and begin it's cooling cycle.
End of!
Instead of tacking on the end of that statement that we, humans are responsible for the heating, because WE have burned so much fossil fuel.
Ian, if you are half the academic you say you are, YOU know that the planet is warming naturally, not because of us, and the oceans release CO2 as it warms. (it also accumulates CO2 when it cools)
So having said this, and the fact that you praise twats like Mann and denigrate the others who disagree with you, it shows a clear display of hypocrisy.
I will not attempt to prove you wrong, because you seem very committed and headstrong about your beliefs.
I have pasted many videos and writings debunking this whole mess, so I will simply leave it for you to look a little deeper or take a long hard look at where you stand with your dogma.
BTW, Mann's "hockey stick" is wrong.

Ian Bryce,

Unless we know the actual questions asked in these polls, we don't know what respondents think about anything. Added to the iffy 61% claim, there are any number of polls with entirely different answers. In fact, there are enough dodgy polls out there to ensure that you will find something to your liking. Polls are as unreliable as climate 'science'. And, you have already said you believe in free speech only for those with your mind set. You can't tart up your intolerance.

Truth by science? Some scientists are ordinary human beings with the added need for taxpayer grants and a yearning to have their egos rubbed. Other scientists, perhaps better qualified and more honest, have not been able to replicate the findings of the shonks. The media keeps those scientists out of public debate in the MSM; you have actually to look for their comments, and most people can't be bothered doing that.

You can rave on as much as you like, Ian, but only your fellow religionists and other flat-earthers will give you the time of day if you continue your raving here. Best stick to your familiar coven.

Thankyou all you coal burners for the lovely rain (you know the sort that was never going fall again).

Dear runner,

You said; "Thankyou all you coal burners for the lovely rain (you know the sort that was never going fall again)."

Who said it was never going to rain again? Why as a professed Christian do you feel the need to tell lie after lie after lie?

Are you just emulating your president? What do you think Jesus would have thought about being usurped by a pussy grabbing liar?

Try to do better mate, as it stands you are decidedly unedifying.

'Who said it was never going to rain again? Why as a professed Christian do you feel the need to tell lie after lie after lie?'

your rush to misrepresent knows no bounds. Heard of a guy called Tim Flannery. I suspect like every gw false prophet for the last 25 years you just ignore and move on. Won't be holding my breath for an apology from you. You regressives who hold to the gw religion just dig deeper and virtue signal louder.

Let us have a look at some of these Deniers! Deniers Ian believes spread false information widely. For example: Lavoisier stated the arguments against CO2 were circumstantial and/or inaccurate, Galileo position Science is evidence-based; the most vocal skeptics are belief-based [a false conclusion]. IPA Bureau of Meteorology has adjusted its records, stripping Marble Bar of its 100 year historical record temperature because it did not suit the Climate narrative..., Heartland Institute http://www.heartland.org/topics/climate-change/index.html According to some scientists, stabilizing the climate would require reducing carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent or even more by the middle of the century. Rationing access to energy and forcing a transition to alternatives to fossil fuels would reduce the quality of life of billions of people around the world. Peter Smith of Quadrant online, Selby ?, Alan Jones Two sides to the science, Ian Plimer http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhnyVJSdohs

Obviously if you do not believe the extremists mantra you will be banished by the Marxist into extinction.