Hi Tom,

Sounds like there are many round the world that agree with you. Not that we hear much of it in Oz, perhaps that’s why we still have some vocal “believers” here.

It’s hard to see this alarmism going anywhere but backwards. The global infrastructure to support a global response to global warming has already gone. No emissions trading markets, no global agreement and the collapse of the global renewable energy industry.

Nothing can now be done even if there was a problem, thanks to alarmism it is now just another minority that cried Wolf too often.

Antarctic Sea Ice At Record Levels - The Australian, 12 May 2014

May 5: Global Sea Ice Area Second Highest On Record - Real Science, 8 May 2014

Most Himalayan Glaciers Stable And In A Steady State, New Study Finds - The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 10 May 2014

Will Solar Doldrums Lead To Global Cooling? - No Tricks Zone, 10 May 2014

Climate Change Debate: A Famous Scientist Becomes A Sceptic - Spiegel Online, 12 May 2014

Britain Wins Shale Battle As EU Leaves Fracking Out Of Stricter Environment Laws - Reuters, 21 December 2013

EU Gives Go-Ahead For Fracking After Brussels Vows No New Regulations - The Times, 21 December 2013

Dow Chemical Holds Back On Investment In Europe, Cities Costly Climate Policies - Bloomberg, 20 December 2013

Met Office Global Warming Prediction Falls Flat - IPCC Report blog, 20 November 2013

Melting ‘Not Undermining Greenland’s Ice Sheet’ - The Australian, 18 November 2013

David Whitehouse: Why The Global Warming ‘Pause’ Hasn’t Gone Away - The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 18 November 2013

the charlatons will need to find another source of income. This religion backed by junk science has been exposed and only flat earthers are still pushing it with some desire to see another diaster to justify their ignorance and deceitful propaganda. Such moral outrage will need to be directed elsewhere.

Dick
With all due respect the article does not provide any science backed reference to link man made co2 emissions to global warming nor to ocean heating nor to melting ice.

Please refer me to those peer reviewed articles so I can assess without relying on the views of journalists or a couple of unnamed or unaccredited scientists.
Thanks.

Here we go again, someone with no expertise in climate science writes an article about climate change including all the well exercised denier tropes.

Cherry picking 1998 as when temperature measurements started is always a good sign that denialism is to come. Sadly for Tom he is wrong. There has been statistically significant warming of surface temperatures since 1998. More importantly, there has also been warming of the deep oceans.

Quoting the nongovernmental panel on climate science as if they have any credibility is another sure give away that denialism is to come. They are a small rump group dedicated to the promotion of climate change denialism.

Harris has the irony to write quote Plato on the Noble Lie. Whether you would agree with Plato’s position or not (I for one disagree), it has no relevance to the Ignoble Lie promulgated by the Heartland Institute and its acolytes and by Harris in this article where he claims that global warming is not happening.

If we can ever get past the climate denialism to a discussion of what are the approaches to addressing a warming world, we could make some progress.

Imajulianutter, with all due respect, neither have you. However spindoc has gone to some considerable trouble to supply links to peer reviews.

But allow me to jog some memories of the political narrative pertaining to the carbon tax:

Firstly, we were sold on the concept of a carbon tax being placed upon polluting industries, in order to coerce them into using more environmentally friendly methods;

Next, was that industry would pass-on the tax to consumers, and that it was up to consumers to choose businesses that were more environmentally friendly, thereby encouraging competition and again, coercion, for pollutant companies to change their practices;

Now, it's a tax used by government on consumers.

Have companies changed their practices? No. But WE , the citizens, pay a carbon tax.

I've mentioned this before...we have the technology to be dramatically less pollutant than we are. But if government is making 60% on the price of petrol, why would they want us to use solar (they can't tax sunlight), or why use steam power for cars (as it would be considered immoral to tax water)? Government would lose billions of dollars per month in revenues if we dispensed with using petrol. So we pay exorbitant prices on petrol, and then pay a carbon tax on top for other energy and products.

Ergo, why would we believe what government says, or anything they pay scientists to say, since they would only pay those that support government's financial interests, which in turn, is polluting industry's interests?

Government doesn't run this country, big business does. Government just creates laws for big business to legally rape and pillage the people and the environment.

Dick

'Imajulianutter, with all due respect, neither have you.'

But I didn't make any assertions Dick, the article you quoted did.
I've just asked you for supporting references.

'Firstly, we were sold on the concept of a carbon tax ... '

Ahhh no. You were I wasn't.

'Next, was that industry would pass-on the tax to consumers
You might have believed the simplicity in that, I doubted it would work like that.

Ahhh the carbon tax laws were introduced by labor, the protector of the people. The libs want to ditch it.