I am not reading a bogus 168 page report written by people who...

I am not reading a bogus 168 page report written by people who do not give a stuff about real science. No one seems to notice the fact that the extract posted by JimCross was garbage and I have pointed out why. If that standout extract that Jim felt so keen on quoting was garbage, then what is the rest of it like? I shudder to think. I am certainly not going to read it all. I would rather have sulphuric acid poured over my private parts.

Welcome back Technicals - you seem to be quickly angling for another suspension. The last time I used that c word I was suspended for 7 days, but maybe the rules have been relaxed here in recent times.

If you are going to insist on calling me huckleberry (I still have no idea why) then I am going to call you "godbotherer". Seems only fair.

P.S. Alan Jones and his shock jock cohorts came under a lot of flak tonight on Media Watch for contravening codes of practice that require them to air both sides of an argument. It seems they have been interviewing Bob Carter and Ian Plimer ad nauseum, but none of the orthodox, accepted climate scientists. Naughty naughty.