David I did read your article but switched off after reading this:

"Despite having just had the hottest year on record and every monthly Australian record being broken and with the US having an unprecedented cold snap with temperatures below –34c the subject has conveniently gone quiet. This of course suits the big end of town, because climate change is expensive to mitigate. They should also realize it is far more expensive to ignore."

None of that is correct. I'll illustrate with the first point; BOM shows 2013 as being the hottest Australian year; but every other major land and satellite temperature indice contradicts this:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=2613

GHCN is the data source for the other major land based temperature networks.

BOM has cut off temp records at 1910 and made unexplained adjustments to the records since. Their temperature and other climate predictions have been gross failures.

But that doesn't matter to you because quite simply you are ignorant.

I'm not; I have published papers and been studying the theory of AGW for a decade. Initially I thought it was right after seeing the Keeling curve of CO2 increase but since I can do the maths and have decades of legal training to recognise BS I have come to the conclusion that AGW is a failed theory.

The costs of persisting with this failed theory have been great and the supporters of it, like you, I now regard as either fools or liars.

I initially thought you were of the latter type but now see you belong in the first category.

Cohenite, if you have published papers on the subject perhaps you can give your real name to all of us ignorant climate terrorists, so we can read your work. I am neither a fool nor am I a liar and I resent the implication. I too have published work on climate change - ISBN 9780957943650 -and I have given my real name. My article is not about who is right or wrong on weather records merely that the very politicians who made it their platform have stopped talking about it. In fact, why don’t you write an article so we can learn from your wisdom.

Your book blurb says:

"The world we inhabit is undergoing significant changes right now and not at some future time convenient to political and industrial agendas. This book gives the what, the where, the when and the why of climate change. It even says who is responsible for the extreme weather events being experienced globally. Unless strong action is taken immediately, catastrophic events will quickly reshape our world. Climate Change Generation is about you, the people who are to bear the brunt of what is to come and will have to try and survive the outcomes ahead."

Name one of those "significant changes" which is climatically exceptional.

As for my work instead I'll give you a paper from a good friend of mine which looks at the correlation between the sun and temperature:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1108.0004v1.pdf

Consider Figures 4-7.

If the long version is too daunting consider the abridged version:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1108.0032v1.pdf

There were 71 papers published in 2013 dealing with the effect of the sun on climate; along with the sun the other major climate factor, water, has been shamefully neglected by the IPCC and AGW science.

The fact is David, the scientific corner has been turned and even the IPCC is back-peddling. The idea that CO2 emissions, ONLY from humans, should be the major climate cause is grotesque.

But as I say I'm not going to change your mind. I am however interested in what you think is the most pressing proof for AGW and don't just say the IPCC, be specific, a particular paper or aspect of climate.

So, no name then cohenite? Pity.

Garth Paltridge is a retired Australian atmospheric physicist. He writes that the global warming pause risks destroying the reputation of science.

In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem … in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour…

http://www.thegwpf.org/gareth-paltridge-global-warming-pause-destroy-reputation-science/

You aren't helping the good name of science, David.

David Leigh, you asked, “What ever happened to climate change in Australia?” and then you opened your essay by making some untenable assumptions that defined your politics rather than added to your argument. You lost my interest in your first two paragraphs.
So let me give you my ideas on why climate change has virtually disappeared from the national agenda.
In 2009 KRudd lead an Australian contingent about 120 strong to support the IPCC conference in Copenhagen and ratify the submission of the UNFCCC. KRudd et al got such a hiding in Copenhagen that after he returned with his tail between his legs he never mentioned global warming or climate change again. Krudd’s political cowardice caused him to lose his job as PM.
After Copenhagen the ALP dropped ‘global warming’ and changed the cause to ‘climate change’. The pragmatists within the ALP moved on and only the committed nutters such as Wong continued to fly the Green flag. KRudd then tipped a big bucket of green ordure over Wong’s able lieutenant, Garrett, who copped the flack for some of the silliest Labor policies in memory that were doomed to failure anyway, and then Garrett faded from the scene.
David Leigh, the rest if the Australian electorate along with most of the world has moved on from the left-wing socialist experiment and left the political dinosaurs like you behind.
Abbott, very sensibly, has played down climate change, now that science is a lot clearer.
David Leigh, give up on climate change and find another drum to beat.
Geoffrey Kelley