SCIENTISTS WHO OUGHT TO KNOW,
TELL US THAT IT MUST BE SO.
LET US NEVER EVER DOUBT
WHAT NO-ONE IS SURE ABOUT. (Belloc)

Hi Sophie

Alas, is anything more poignant than your unquestioning faith and idealism, and that of all the other well-meaning (arts/law, etc) eco-activists?

The biggest "act of negligence" is not inaction on climate change, but the lack of a formal public enquiry into the climate science orthodoxy.

Instead, we have a government (and its agencies) doing everything in its power to prevent us from knowing the truth, a government determined to avoid deeper scrutiny of the huge uncertainties here.

You write: "The correlation between climate change and extreme weather events has been agreed upon by the scientific community." Really?

Once upon a time, the climate orthodoxy was content to restrict itself to making alarmist "projections" about global warming decades into the future. Now, apparently desperate to reverse the public's apocalypse fatigue, it (like you) is switching to "weather" (aka "extreme weather events") and attempting more deception with a bogus "correlation between it and a new concept, "climate disruption".

Which climate scientists have agreed upon it? How did they define ‘extreme weather events’? How did they measure their frequency? Over what period were the measurements taken? By what magic/criteria do they determine whether EWEs are due to "natural variability" (all that happens in the "climate system" they cannot predict) or have an anthropogenic cause? Are the causes of the Queensland floods of 1893, 174 and 2011 identical, or different? Why?Etc.

Do you really believe there we could have a static Goldilocks climate - one "just right" for everyone from Archangel to Marble Bar - if only we allowed governments to twitch the planet's elusive thermostat by taxing us? (Hey, come and join me in Warmerland.)

The so-called Precautionary Principle you evoke (out of desperation?) is not science. How can one take legitimate - not emotional and irrational - precautions about future events known with less certainty than flipping a coin?


Alice (in Warmerland)

[Deleted for abuse.]

Perhaps if the climataria were a little more precise in their use of the language they and AGW might have some credibility.

It is clear from many of the respondees herein, that they have also been caught in the trap of just what is meant by Climate Change....it actually means all changes in the climate however ascribed.

But as they dont know with any degree of reliability which bit is caused by us, or is natural variability, it is just so easy to ascribe any change as being by man, and thereby ramping up the level of alarmism way beyond anything remotely reasonable

The author cannot be blamed for also using the terminolgy...but the main climate academics, and the Commonwealth Govt Departments can and should be called to account for the deliberate and blatant misrepresentation that it really is.

The deceit is quite shameful, and a poor reflection upon all those involved

'The last year has seen drought, fire and flood end lives and cripple communities.'

And that's never happened before? Read a history book, kid.

'All scientific evidence indicates that climate change is real and happening.'

Yeeeesssssss, and ..? Once again: that's never happened before?

'It also indicates that the impacts of climate change on every aspect of our lives, if it is not addressed, will be disastrous.'

Now, here is where you're going off the rails.

*ALL* scientific evidence? Sorry, but that claim is out-and-out bullsh!t. For one, evidence would be data, gathered from real-world observations, *not* computer models run from the safety of one's office. Computer models are not evidence.

For another, there is no evidence, even from computer models, that 'the impacts of climate change on every aspect of our lives, if it is not addressed, will be disastrous.' EVERY aspect of our lives? Whose lives? Every human being on the planet? Human beings in Australia? Or just South-East Queensland, or NSW, or Victoria?

Most models, for what they're worth (which, for various reasons, is not a hell of a lot) agree that there will be gains and losses from climate change.

Is there a net gain or a net loss? For whom?

If the people of South-East QLD, hypothetically, experience a loss from more frequent flooding, yet the people of Africa experience a net gain from increased rainfall, do the losses of the one trump the gains of the other?

Then there is the key phrase: 'if it is not addressed'. Are you seriously suggesting that the impacts of climate change - natural or otherwise - *won't* be addressed? Humans have been adapting to climate for several million years, and now suddenly the most technologically advanced and wealthiest humans in history going to sit back and perish en masse because of yet another climate perturbation?

While I personally that there is sufficient evidence to indicate that climate change is occurring, given that the flood of 1974 was far worse, I feel that Sophie Trevitt's claim that this is directly caused by climate change is unethically opportunistic. It has the same ring as the pastor that claimed that the Victoria bush fires were retribution for the abortions done in Australia.

Geoff Davies above, in an act of self promotion refers readers to his own web site Betternature for proof that AGW is real and the evidence is clear

However his web site also states that the Climategate emails and sundry reports found no evidence of malpractice etc.None and nothing he says.

Unfortunately for him, that is also rubbish... being more an example of academe investigating iself ...with quite predictable outcomes, as this report demonstrates.

http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf

Its a pretty poor kettle of fish when they cant even answer the Terms of References, never mind properly interview, document and investigate all sources.

But then what else can one expect.. its all par for the course in this little caper