'The worst storm in living memory has just ripped through the Philippines! '

so predictable. Pity their forecasts aren't nearly as accurate. So blinded by their articles of faith.

Peter
The Libs introduced the GST basically a tax on everything except food and real estate which raises some 250 Billion a year. So at a rough estimate between now and 2050 this iniquitous tax on just about every thing will cost Australians about 9250 billion dollars or around 310,000 dollars per person in today's dollars ( nearly a million dollars per family of 4.)

Once we accept these figures, can we, with integrity, advocate to put such a huge cost and debt on future generations - all for no benefit? when instead we could impose tax on pollution which would help to keep the air and water of this great land clean and fresh while paying for all the government services we enjoy.

warmCO2; CO2 is NOT a pollutant and that includes what you exhale; I can't say the same about your comments.

I really hope AbbottAbbottAbbott continues to smash the green/AGW parasites. The howls of outrage will be very enjoyable as they revert to their right place in the order of things: at the fringe and not on the public purse.

GrahamY, thanks for pointing out Andrew Bolt's WUWT spiel - interesting, but not unexpected.

Others may find NASA even more revealing (and less cherry picked).

http://phys.org/news/2013-11-nasa-super-typhoon-haiyan-strength-philippines.html

It would appear "carpet baggers and rent seekers" are indeed picking cherries and over-running OLO.

Chris Keys asked why John Howard initiated "Carbon Pricing Scheme" if he did not believe in human induced global warming, suggesting that Howard was up to no good. Then Keys answered his own question, and completely destroyed his own implication that Howard was doing something sinister. Nice one, Chas.

After destroying the reader's confidence in his ability to use logic in his opening statement, Chas made it worse. He sneered at Howard for basing his new opinions about climate change on literature written by a non scientist. Equating premises, why should the readers of OLO base any of their opinions about climate change on anything that Chas keys has written, since he is not a scientist either?

Chas then adopts the very sanctimonious tone which John Howard warned us about. He continued his rant as if Human Induced Climate Change (HICC) is a scientific fact, and the scientific debate is over, when it clearly is not. From this position, he likens people who oppose his "science" as akin to religious believers.

Note to Chas. The scientific debate is not over. Only recently, Professor of Mining Geology at Adelaide University, Tim Plimer, gave an interview to "The Australian" newspaper claiming that HICC was not scientifically supportable.

Before Poirot pipes up and claims that Plimer is biased because his income is based on denying climate change, could I suggest that this works both ways? If Geologist scientists who support coal and petroleum mining, and who oppose HICC must be therefore be considered partisan, then exactly the same premise must also apply to climate scientists who's pay checks are also dependent upon promoting HICC.

LEGO,

Great analysis.

Yep, the warmists have a funny love hate relationship with geologists. If like Pilmer they question the orthodoxy its "what would a geologist know,it's not their field". But if they write for that much linked to warmist site Skeptical Scientist, they are the fount of all knowledge and wisdom.