@entropic

I know nothing of your motivations. I know what you wrote and I know what you did. But why you did them is a secret between you and your conscience.

Let's remind ourselves of our various actions throughout our little saga.

You proposed we have a debate. I readily agreed.

You proposed a motion to discuss. I readily agreed with the motion..put a few bounds on it to make it finite, but otherwise unchanged. I note that Professor Betts of the Met Office also suggested bounds.

You proposed a format of opening statements and follow up. I agreed. My opening statement to your motion 'This house regards sea level rise as a threat to civilisation' has been available for all to see since 14th December 6:39pm.

You then withdrew without making an opening statement, citing 'stress'.

A lively discussion ensued in your absence. On your return, you began to show different ways of calculating SLR, but conspicuously failed to address at all the substance of the motion you proposed...that SLR is a 'threat to civilisation'.

And having come up with only the rather pathetic examples of the impacts on civilisation that in 100 years we might lose Dungeness power station to SLR, you accuse me of being a charlatan!

Seems to me that I robustly took on the central tenet of your motion and won the debate hands-down. Meanwhile (when present) you pootled about in the academic undergrowth chasing numbers of little importance.

In more robust times, I suspect that I might be asking you to nominate seconds and to meet me at dawn on Putney Heath.

As it is, I will merely counsel you to be more careful in your choice of motion to debate. It was your motion on your terms. And especially to be very much more careful in your language wrt your co-debaters. You wouldn't want to be thought of as a bad loser, would you?