Secondly, are you being serious? No really, I’m wondering. I have nothing more to offer? You make me laugh!

So let me recap and understand what on earth you’re trying to get at.

I wrote a post, Ian comes back with a load of climate change denial comments, referring to biased resources and criticising my use of less questionable sources of information.

A brief background check on Ian reveals he frequently posts similar content on other sites – they all talk about climate change and he always makes a number of points that look like convincing arguments that climate change isn’t a problem. Of those sites, all bar one have seen him comment once and never return.

I call Ian on this issue and ask him to to enlighten me on one issue but never hear from him. Two weeks later I call him on the single-post-wonder reputation he seems to be creating for himself.

So where in all this have I become the one with nothing more to offer? I would love nothing more than for Ian to come back and enter in to a discussion on this topic.

Honestly, when I first read your comment, I thought you were some spam bot, but you haven’t included a URL or any links in the comment, so perhaps you really are serious. Or just confused. Or just out for a joy ride on the web. I’m not sure.

I don’t expect a response from you, given the time its taken me to approve and reply to your comment.

By the way, if you do come back, or if any one else knows, what is a fat head? Perhaps your definition hasn’t made it in to my vernacular or common usage yet; the only relevant definition I can find is for “fathead”: a man who is a stupid incompetent fool.

Or perhaps, like most of the other threads I’ve seen you participate in, you’re a one-comment-wonder who is looking to spread his opinions but unable to defend his position and shies from healthy debate.

Yeah, I thought so.

You reference Jo Nova, and I’ve had a look at joannenova.com.au and I’m no more inclined to trust links from a self professed skeptic than a hard core eco-warrior. I propose that SourceWatch and Wikipedia (I assume that’s what you mean by wiki) are more likely to be unbiased and fair reports.

I never mentioned any percentage of funding that Heartland gets from corporations as this is a moot point. My point is I’m not likely to trust an organisation that writes articles on how second hand smoke is not bad for you when they receive at least $190,000 in funding from tobacco companies.

I fail to see your point on the carbon trading front, perhaps you can enlighten me. Are you implying that because an energy company has found a more profitable source of money, that the previous source of that money is no longer a valid discussion point? How much money do you think BP can make from carbon trading if they don’t sell oil?

Finally, why on earth would you wish someone to freeze their derrière off? I’m assuming you’re trying to be funny, but your attempt to get your message across has been thwarted by a childish comment.