I have been on the receiving end of Frans pedantic and critical comments myself in some of my earlier comments here at LP as a P plater in the blogosphere. It kind of reminded me of a teacher I had many moons ago, handing out sharp remarks akin to “Common, you can do better then that!”. A lesson that I quickly learned to the benefit of everyone, including myself. Further, while not agreeing with Fran on all occasions, I have learned to respect her in the depth of her comments, her detailed analysis, but most so for her intellectual rigor and honesty. So if she says that Lee is trolling, I would say that there is some thing to that. However, Lee may not be aware of it, since he is only referencing to its original meanings. While Fran is at times a bit of a PITA she is also an asset on this forum which I have learned to respect.

So Lee I would like to make you aware of what trolling means on the internet. I will use the Urban dictionary definitiont for this purpose.
Firstly, Lee your constant referral to your and your progeny qualifications as well as your present activity can be perceived as condescending and , as per definition, you are in danger of making a prick of your good self. On a blog anybody can state any qualifications, the only way you can really demonstrate or qualify your background is by your argument and knowledge. For example, I have a non English speaking background, that does not make me any better or worse than any other contributor here as long my argument is sound and well presented. Second, your comment can be perceived as trolling since your comments re AGW and the scientific understanding of it, are very condescending and an affront to the time and intellectual effort many of us have spend as to research and critical analysis most of us have expended to understand the complex issue. Further in this regard, your reference to Lindzen et al. do you no credit Sir. I dare suggest that you do further reading on this topic and please no cherry picking, it does not make good science. In relation to AGW, many of us here and in other places have come across similar simplistic references and statements such as yours and are quite obviously getting a bit tired of these unsubstantiated and refuted claims by not just the IPPC but by all the major and relevant science bodies on this planet. So I dare say, I look forward to your informed comments, but please keep the condescending tone out of it in future here and anywhere else on the net or you may experience a dose of flamming again.

I’d like for everyone to cool it down and sit back together and let’s hear what Lee and his country cousins have to say. After all, the potential consequences of AGW is too serious for everyone as to indulge in personal grandstanding and squabbles.

I have no problem with people posting here from a rightwing perspective — GregM, Wozza, PeterTB and of course you and one or two others round out the blog. I haven’t harangued any of them as I recall, though we did do some banter.

What you seem to be saying is that you’d like this to be a much more rightwing blog. You’re entitled to your opinion but I’d see that as a decline in the diversity of the Australian blogosphere, which is already located mostly on the right.

I can’t imagine how you can say that I am stopping anyone else getting a word in. This is a text-based medium. You can skip my posts and so can anyone else.

try to read another’s comment from the place from where they are coming from

I did that and that was what troubled the moderstor.

show respect to the person who writes & moderates a blog posting

If you look at my post above you will see that I have shown the moderator every respect, though I have disagreed with his ostensible policy. I can’t imagine the basis on whioch you suggest otherwise.

The article notes that a full study was rejected by Sydney Uni. I find this disappointing and although I’m doubtful, I would like to see if the claims can be supported…”
The study was supported by Sydney University and the Federal government declined to fund further research.
And just in case your speed reading limited your comprehension -”Professor Mark Adams, Dean of Sydney University’s Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources.”
Obviously an amateur!A link to his page at the faculty site.Oh and his email is there too so please let him know your thoughts and insights on this subject.
.
http://www.agric.usyd.edu.au/staff/find_staff_member/staff_profiles/mark_adams.shtml

I am going to respond because I fear you have missed some important points. You are of course entitled to, as you are amongst the operators of this site. The rules are a matter for you and your colleagues. I accept that.

Your posts here impress me, as I’ve said before. You strike me as erudite, ethical and rational and these attributes alone warrant respect, even were you not managing this site. I believe however that you misapprehend the character above, and more importantly, are in danger of adopting rules that would damage the credibility of this place.

You say:

It was interesting that a commenter new to this forum perceived your comments as vitriolic. You really should have a think about that.

I did have a think about that, but this is simply the kind ofg tactic pursued by those dubbed “concern trolls”. (Look it up). The concern troll purports to be offended as much by the tone in which arguments are conducted as the substance. You say you know something of this chap, which puts you at something of an advantage, if that is indeed the best term, but as far as I can tell, here was yet another sockpuppet doing pretty much what every other denier troll does when (s)he gets here. His assertion had no substance but was designed to provoke the response he actually got.

The broader point though is this: if you take the view that all first timers get special treatment regardless of their conduct then what you do is open the door to the site being trolled by the partisans of whatever culture war is running. A little while back we had one “John Michelmore” here who said not much different that the chap above. People didn’t treat him politely — nor should they have but what is to stop him or any person any person simply reiterating under a new nym?

The claim that those posting palpably absurd claims ought not to be called on it for fear of being the victim of “ad hominem” or as Tom Fuller over at Deltoid would have it “a vicious smear campaign” is simply part of the argy bargy that denier trolls come with. Plimer’s pitch is, after all, that he is being brutalised by the PC crowd, and that we should endure his nonsense with equanimity so as to preserve civility.

You continue:

I did say upthread that I wanted to cultivate LP as a place where rural people felt comfortable about commenting. Frankly it was building quite nicely until you ripped into Jason on this thread and then it all fell away almost completely.

Anyone who wants to look can see that this is not fair comment, despite Jason’s complaint, which spoke to his own angst rather than anything I was saying. I actually solidarised with his problems but he couldn’t hear that initially because he was convinced that us ignorant city folk were out to get him and his brethren. As one poster eventually put it at 75:

Still, Fran Barlow should be congratulated for her patience and civility in the face of some completely over the top attacks

Jason and I ultimately reconciled. Your broader desire to have this place as somewhere that a diverse range of people, including our rural people, can feel welcome is laudable. The question remains though whether to pander to their angst, when it appears, or to set them straight. I fear that you have taken the road of pandering. Had you not seen this chap as a rural archetype, if he had merely posted as John Michelmore, would you have reacted as you did? I don’t think so. And if you treat claiming rural status as a shield from criticism aren’t you simply offering a strategy to everyone who wants to troll here with impunity? It’s not as if there is a shortage of blogsites catering to angst-ridden reactionaries. The more salient question is — how would such a site appeal to those of us wanting to discuss things from “a left-of-centre perspective”. I can’t see that it could.

It’s a little like what Julian Morrow said at his Andrew Olle lecture. Catering to diversity doesn’t mean guaranteeing nobody can be offended. Doing it properly, in this case from a left-of-centre perspective means demanding that civility be earned by conduct. I’m perfectly happy to be civil with people I sharply disagree with. Indeed, I prefer it. Yet if someone wants to banter on the fringes of civility, I am happy to give them what they seek.

You must do as you think fit, ultimately. If you believe the price for the rural demographic you say you want is us leftists enduring a kind of maudlin-rurally-centred-PC, and leaving AGW-talking points raised by trolls unchallenged then by all means, say so. In that case, this site will rapidly morph into a right-of-centre blog and what you publish here will be part of the problem rathter than paert of the solution. While I will be disappointed that the reactionaries have gained another victory with such artless ease, I will move on and leave those still interested to it.

I note that recent polls suggest that something like 60% of the UK public share the delusionist position on climate change. One suspects that not the least reason for this is the faux evenhandedness of the mainstream press, which, insisting that there are two sides to every story, long after it is plain there is not, has given grist to the mill of the campaign by the big polluters to keep using the atmnosphere as a cheap industrial tip. That’s something you might like to reflect upon, Brian.

“If we were to be logical about it the farmer who pays the tax now should receive that same tax back, plus interest, in 12 years time since the methane emitted by his cow does not exist in the atmosphere. Alternatively, if he bought a credit so that the cow was allowed to burp, then he should be able to on sell that credit in 12 years time.”

Hi brown wiggle – Is there an industrial chemist in the house? I was under the impression that atmospheric methane reacted with OH to begin an oxidation chain which eventually leads to the formation of water and carbon dioxide.

It’s apparently equivalent to burning the methane very slowly in the atmosphere. Therefore while the atmospheric lifetime of methane is about 12 years, the oxidation process to CO2 would make it about 112 years? Another example is carbon monoxide which, after elevating atmospheric methane and ozone, oxidizes to CO2.

I guess “all things are bound together, all things connect” – though I hasten to add that I’m a science illiterate.

Also completion of my B.V.SC allowed me to complete a M.SC in Range Management at the Mulford School of Forestry at Uni of California Berkeley in 69-70. This really opened my eyes to a revolutionary world and analytical thought. I have been walking the talk on environmental matters now for 40 years and have sired three Environmental Engineers for my environmental sins.

Ms. Barlow, what is your legacy to Australia and planet Earth other than some unconvincing references which I will deal with in detail tonight after I have completed a hard days work with Doug {son of troll} Regards to all Lee Mc Nicholl

As an example Matt Cawood, environmental writer for Queensland Counrty Life recently said:

The Queensland Government is understood to be reviewing a report that links the State’s livestock emissions profile to land clearing.

You should worry about the line it is likely to take and how this relates to your role in representing property owners.

But you should understand that if the report is negative to your interests, simply stating that orthodox climate science is a load of cobblers is going to be highly counterproductive and reduce your credibility with those who you are trying to influence (who actually have the power).

In their environment they will know no-one who doesn’t accept human induced climate change and will regard those who differ delusionist at best. So the arguments will have to be based on science as it relates to ruminants, which I hope to address again in my next post.