The most dangerous thing about the now defunct climate change theory was it gave clowns like Andrew an excuse to rip billions of honest taxpayers, & redistribute it to their chosen cause.

Obviously he would have loved the billions poured into academia to fund any dubious research that could include "Climate Change" in it's mission statement.

I wonder how many submissions for research grants by Andrew just happened to mention climate change.

Dear Andrew,

Following the “climategate” revelations on November 19th 2009, you had the same opportunity as everyone else to reassess your thinking. You had three choices, to bail out immediately, to formulate an exit plan or to grimly hang on to the “faith” saying quietly to yourself, “please god let me be right”.

Unfortunately you are left with only the latter now and things are going to get a whole lot worse for you.

There was once a global emissions protocol, Kyoto. There was once a thriving global renewable energy industry, several emissions trading markets, a global finance industry willing to invest in renewable energy, electricity generators willing to accommodate renewable energy, many nations willing to subsidize solar and wind generation.

It may have escaped your attention but since 2009 these have all gone.

If the science you support is not good enough to sustain the global infrastructure that was created for it, why should it be good enough for us?

In Europe, austerity has just collided with the high costs of energy. Their Industries are departing for low energy cost destinations, old king coal is back in business, Germany has already increased coal imports by 17% and the dirtiest coal on the planet Lignite, is now producing 29% of Germany’s power. Japan is building 17 new coal/gas power stations, 16 of which will be on stream by late 2014.

The USA has a 60% gas price advantage over the EU. The Czech Republic and Poland have now officially withdrawn from renewable generation and of the 194 Nations signed up with the UNFCCC, only 34 now has any CO2 legislation and 24 of these are in the EU.

What is it about “this is all over Rover’ you don’t quite get?

You are destined to go down with the ship along with the colors you so naively nailed to the mast. Like so many other politicians, advocates, activists, NGO’s, media outlets and industrial opportunists, it is now too late for you. You political legacy will be ridicule.

Andrew, this is just another normal Sydney summer. Some are hot, some are wet, some are dry. But no matter what they are, the Church of Climatology will claim that it is caused by carbon.

Bushfires have been around forever too, Andrew. The only difference being that in the past there were no stupid greenies doing their best to stop burn offs so yesterday's bushfires were usually less intense.

We'll all be rooned said Hanrahan, unless we stop burning fossil fuels.

Andrew it is only Governments who are given mandates ... to govern. There is no such thing as a mandate to oppose. There is only opposition. I know you lefties struggle with the concepts of democracy but I think the voters don't. So oppose the wishes of the majority as much as you want ... it's just that while you claim mandate for your policy you'll be at odds with the majority and will always only get to oppose. And I think that is a good thing too.

Lol keep up the grand work your attitude will ensure we will have an Abbott led Government with a mandate for years to come.

The argument that human produced co2 is causing the warming has never been substantiated ... and the majority seem to understand that.

whilst I do believe in "climate change" I am pretty sceptical that it is anything to get to worked up about. Its the words "on record" that I trip over. How far back do the records go? If at least a few thousand years then yes, maybe I will start digging my dooms day shelter.
As too the climate change creating worse fire risk...a fire has three elements that act as a triangle. At one point each there is "HEAT", "OXYGEN" and "FUEL" Without all three the triangle collapses. Outdoors we always have oxygen, and yes heat is a major contributor to the process, the more of it there is, the worse the risk. However without fuel there is no fire. So while half of the Greens are jumping up and down that climate change is going to increase the risk of fire the other half go jump up and down because a farmer wants to eliminate the neck deep (and NO I'm NOT exaggerating) grass surrounding his property. Doesn't make sense to me. By all means jump up and down about what you believe in but don't try and feed me my own BullS&#t.

"Australians just experienced a winter of discontent; the hottest on record. We are bracing ourselves for a shocking summer. It has been too hot in NSW to even continue property-saving hazard reduction. Climate change is a clear and present danger to the nation."

The author's comments are characteristic of the simplistic thinking of many Labor MPs.

With the exception of skiers and those catering for skiers, Australians generally enjoyed the warmer winter temperatures, particularly fewer frosts and lower heating bills.

Indeed, many Australians could be in for a shocking summer , because of the lack of hazard reduction burning this year, attributable to the misinformed opposition of Labor's Green colleagues. As a result, there will be more severe fires, many houses will be burned down and many thousand hectares of bushland and national parks needlessly destroyed.

His inference that climate change is man-caused and can be controlled, is as unfounded as the AGW propaganda spruiked by his Labor colleagues.

Australia is in shock from being hit with massive energy price rises and loss of comparative national advantage resulting from draconian government actions taken to allegedly control climate. Such actions cannot be justified on scientific or economic grounds, and nor will they be environmentally effective. There is no empirical scientific evidence that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause dangerous global warming.

Nor is there scientific or economic justification for spending loads of money on Direct Action. Turnbull is correct for once in stating that Direct Action has the “virtue” of being easily terminated. The sooner Direct Action is terminated, the more cost effective it will be