David, if you had followed the link you’d have discovered that the link wasn’t to the main report, it was to a report to the commission prepared by scientists from the Bushfire CRC, The Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research. I didn’t expect you to read it. As I said, it wouldn’t interest climate science deniers who’d dismiss it with allegations of fraud and “models”.

As for the rest —I can see I was mostly right. I can now fill in the blanks. You aren’t just a climate science denier, you’re a climate conspiracy theorist of the “climate science is a hoax” and “scientists don’t know nuffin’” variety.

There’s more. I’m a regular Sherlock Holmes. You can tell a lot about a person from the non-science they spout. You don’t get your science from scientists, you get it umpteenth hand from climate denier blogs. That explains why you quote cosmic rays while clearly not understanding the hypothesis behind them or the evidence to support or refute Svenmark’s ideas. It explains why you probably don’t even know that there are hundreds of thousands of published papers relating to climate science. You think it’s enough to mention PopTech’s silly list of “1300”, though you clearly haven’t read or understood any of the papers he claims as denier papers. (Evidence being that his list is contradictory, contains a lot of rubbish, and includes a lot of papers that don’t dispute mainstream science. Not that I’d have expected you to investigate it.)

The fact that you think looking out over your paddock gives you a better understanding of what’s happening globally than scientists who spend their entire lives measuring and analysing, shows you’re of this type.

What’s the bet you get your medical advice from the barber, and complain that your specialist is talking through her hat. And you get your financial advice from the local milk bar proprietor and complain about your know-nothing accountant. The chances are good that you diss the local farm advisers and agricultural researchers and the agricultural R&D organisations (and your grand-children’s teachers) by saying stuff like “those who can, do, those who can’t teach”.

In other words, you despise knowledge and think you’re a rough diamond who knows it all, so much better than those who actually do know what they are talking about.

Like I said at the beginning — you don’t give a stuff about Australia or you’d make an effort to learn about climate (and the natural environment you make your living from).

You might plant a few trees and maintain a swamp or two for the birds and give yourself a big pat on the back while getting angry at people who are cleaning up the mess you make. However, you don’t care enough to investigate climate science. That’s called wilful ignorance. If you didn’t spread disinformation it would be harmless. But you do. So you are knowingly doing your bit to harm Australia and the world for many generations to come.

That’s despicable and in my view, cowardly. You can’t even bring yourself to be honest with yourself.