"Bolt has left out all the floods, drought, cyclones and as usual has cherry picked what he wants to see.
Add to that crop failures, animal losses and I have no doubt there is more but I can't be bothered searching to answer this drivel.Posted by Robert LePage"

The "drivel" you are concerned about comes from the NSW Rural Fire Service, not Andrew Bolt. See here: http://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/dsp_content.cfm?cat_id=1180

In any case, the argument in the article was about fires, not about the other climate catastrophes you cited. Please try to keep your comments relevant and vent your spleen on more worthy sources.

"After 25 years of warnings about global warming, all Lynn can point to is a set of bushfires that started much earlier in the season than usual. Granted they are large, but so were the 1939 fires and [1983] Ash Wednesday bushfires in Vic - and there was considerably greater loss of life back then. After three very wet seasons followed by a dry season what did anyone expect in the Australian bush?"
Posted by Curmudgeon, Monday, 21 October 2013 10:11:32 AM

Yet the 1939 and Ash Wednesday fires were in mid-late summer - Jan and February.

So NOT early!

-

"The current fires and consequent damages and deaths are due to Greens and other adult children stopping the RFS carrying out effective back-burns after two very wet years ... "
Posted by McCackie, Monday, 21 October 2013 9:51:12 AM

That bare assertion is unlikely to be true: Pls don't misrepresent!!

Sigh

A few points

No single weather event can be used to prove the existence or absence of climate change, whether it be unseasonably early bush fires or cold snaps. This week's fires may well have happened regardless of any global warming.

The science does, however, predict that extreme weather events will become more frequent as the global temperature increases. Therefore we should expect more fires, floods, cyclones etc. And regardless of whether or not global warming is caused by humans, we should be preparing for these events - and planning accordingly.

No actions (or inactions) by Australia can affect the actual temperatures in the short term. That doesn't mean that we should do nothing. Just because my throwing junk into Sydney harbour will have little effect on the cleanliness of the world's oceans doesn't mean that I have a right to carry on doing so.

Australians, per capita, emit more carbon dioxide than almost anyone else. Therefore if anyone has a duty to cut emissions, it is Australia. And if we can do it without the sky falling in, that will make it easier for other countries to follow.

This is actually a very good article. Unfortunately, unless the predictions of change can be made less broad and more personal, it is extremely hard to get anyone to take notice and act - particularly if it might cost them money.

The exception, of course, is the insurance companies who have to put their money where their mouths are. They are actively changing their models and prices to take climate change into account. And they are far from stupid.

Congratulations to Lyn for another outstanding article, to Rob LePage for his sensible comment, and Elephantidae for the film he or she linked to which should be viewed by all intelligent contributors who care about our world and our grandchildren.

P.S. That excludes Runner, Hasbeen and Jardine for reasons which everyone is painfully aware of!

A is A,:
I assumed that when you mentioned Bolt in your previous post that you were inferring the data was from him and was to say that there had not been many "extreme weather" events.
My reply was to point out that it only included fires and not any other "climate extremes".

Lyn,

There is little point in posting to OLO.

As most of the credible press worldwide are now refusing to print the drivel from deniers because it is no longer opinion (other than the Murdoch rags of course). This month the Los Angeles Times letters editor, Paul Thornton, did just that with a story on letters from climate-change deniers. He said he would not print letters that asserted "there is no sign humans have caused climate change" because "it was not stating an opinion, it's asserting a factual inaccuracy". The SMH has just implemented the same policy (paraphrased).

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/smh-letters/climate-change-a-note-from-our-letters-editors-20131021-2vvjd.html#ixzz2iKapwPeT

So we are left with the 'usual suspects"; runner, Hasbeen, Jon J et al. spraying forth on this forum.

They will spend eternity patting themselves on the back about how clever they are in fighting off the "leftie", "greenie", socialist AGW scam but the rest of the world is not listening to them and the only point in visiting OLO is for a laugh. Nearly as funny as reading Bolt's diatribes but at least his is eloquent (sometimes) drivel.

The debate on the science has been fought and they have lost...simple really.

The only real question is what actions the global community can and will take and the time scale for unraveling the carbon lobby's influence