When submitting this article for publication, I suggested that … “it will probably “stimulate” those who think climate science and AGW are “crap” into making their own carefully considered, science based comments!

Is this the best they can do? If so, it is hardly worth commenting on. I suppose it was to be expected - the usual diatribes.

Agnostic of Mittagong,

The article is just an anti-Abbot rant. It is pure politics. It has nothing to do with science. It's an example of the worst of CAGW alarmism, Left wing politics, and those who do all they can to block genuine progress.

This is what's important

Greens' carbon restraint policies would cost $27 billion p.a. and deliver effectively zero benefit.

Labor-Greens ETS total cost to 2050 = $1,345 billion. Benefit near $0

That is $58,000 for every person living in Australia now (assuming 23 million population). This is what it will cost if we pay at current prices in installments over the 37 years to 2050. However, the discounted cost; i.e., for those who choose to pay a lump sum up front and 'no more to pay' (assuming no more changes to the rules) – is $17,000 per person. In return for this up front payment you hope to get $5,400 per person of benefits, as climate damages avoided, over the period to 2050.

How many rational people would be prepared to pay $17,000 per person as a lump sum now, or prepared to pay $58,000 over 37 years, in the hope of gaining an intangible benefit of $5,400 in 'reduced climate damages' over the next 37 years?

It is likely atmospheric CO2 concentration will be in the range 500 to 800 ppmv in 2100. The higher concentrations would be more likely to occur if those who like to call themselves ‘Progressives’ continue to be successful at retarding progress (e.g. blocking nuclear power); the lower concentrations, if the ‘Progressives’ could be persuaded to become progressive and facilitate genuine progress instead of continually blocking it.

NASA says climate change is real, where is there real evidence that it is not the case
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
sea level rise
global temperature increase
warming oceans
shrinking ice sheets
declining Arctic sea ice
glacial retreat
ocean acidification
extreme events

Countries such as Bolivia, Chile,Peru, Ethiopia, Israel, and USA acknowledge climate change.
Issues in the South American countries evolve around crop failure which are beginning to happen, epidemiological issues, water supply, and impacts on the poor.

Oh for crying out loud. Yes climate change is real. It's the science about it that's crap.
What can the science do to stop it, tell us. If they can't then stop making the waffle about it another industry.

the gw 'scientist 'must be relieved they are not old testament prophets. They would of been stoned long ago. Amazing how shameless they are after so much fraud, deceit and false predictions. No differene I suppose to those who tried to scare the school kids in the 1970's into believing we were in for an ice age and that oil would all be gone by 2000. Oh well the gullible will want to keep believing while the high priests line their pockets. True science reputation is left trashed.

Newman stated on Lateline that there has been no warming in the past 17 years.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/wmo-temperature-decades-590x389.png

Just out of interest this is a comment about March 2014..."But looking at the entire globe — as scientists do when they track things like global warming — 2014's month of March was the fourth-hottest one on record." From ClimateProgress
Now theres a bit of a problem as a number of records have been exceeded since 2000.