We have just had a round the world trip to drum up a coalition of carbon deniers, so that shows where AU's political agenda is focused on.

Our govt ; now wants to scrap the carbon price in favour of our tax money going into big company's being paid to clean up their act.

2.5 billion $ worth of clean up to big business, then what more billions of tax payers money supporting big business.

That cenerio is open to waste and fraud.

>"Given that they have had virtually a monopoly of the mass media, the government and the scientific academies, doesn't that point to a fundamental problem with the 'climate change' message?"

Yes!, Don. It certainly does. Never before have so many people been subjected to such sustained and widespread propaganda. It is driven by a religious-like belief based on mass group think with the leaders being the academics (in the soft sciences, arts, journalism, etc.).

It's interesting to notice how rapidly the change is now occurring. Until recently, sites like 'Climate Spectator', were dominated by vitriolic climate cultists. They were really abusive calling people who question their beliefs "Deniers" and "Dinosaurs" and more.

But look at the change now. The comments yesterday on a post by John Connor, chief executive of The Climate Institute: "Separating the climate dinosaurs from an evolved citizenry" http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/6/23/policy-politics/separating-climate-dinosaurs-evolved-citizenry

Not the content and tone of the 30 comments. This is a massive change.

THANKS DIVER..[i allready decided not to pay the next power bill]
on principle,,..or converting the whoe home to off peak[22 hours of powr per day[at half price\..sounds a great deal.

power goes off 6;30..back on 8;20..[some nights they dont switch it off to boost the off peak hot water/[gas works best]...ANYHOW.

but the reason for writing was this education payback thing ;
students loans..its great they are only at 4 percent/whas not told however..is that/its directly loaned by world bank/to load up debt/on those best expected to repay the debt

to be clear..its not govt lending the money/but the world bank/to assure its cash flow/thats how im fighting back..see every banknote;..the bankers get[goes directly to the fed;there to get leverage..to a credit line..for every dollar/banked;the bank get credit to lend out 10 more..[i have heard up to 120 more/but marginal resrve borrowing=1cash=19 credit.

now the money..imf is lending to our students[is the same money [leveraged]..by joe cocky gifting 10 BILLION TO THE FED..[who leveraged joes 10..INTO 100 billion..THEY gift to the world bank[who leveraged it into1 TRILLION..BUT WHO TO BEST HOLD THAT DEBT;..STUDENTS

I BLAME THE DELIBERATE DUMBING DOWN OF EDUCATION
AND IGNOANCE LOVING ITS PAINS..[we must resist our kids borrowing back joes 10 billion to pay out..1 trillion..in time[plus intrest]

its a grand high-treason
but where doth theot stop?

that roses 1 is a very clever guy/the best money can buy
but he is a sellout..;HES SADLY ON THE WRONG SIDE..he could do much

but poor man thinks he has sold his soul
but thats not yeT A DONE DEAL
god loves the repentant sinner..simply go and sin no more[or help end this insane treason at its root[the libs have done all thEY WANTED ..nice new cashy slush reseARCH FUND..nice private puvlic servants pension fund[also looted]

stop giving the banks cash..tomorrow they steal all yours
its time we realised cash in hand=proof we own the fed.[we got num,bers on the securitised paper[the line through the dollar bill means securitised/not dollar.

Well, A theory remains just that, until it is proven, then it is just fact?
I plan not to accept this theory, but just make use of the precautionary principle, at least until it is either disproved by emerging facts or sea levels has risen by at least 3 metres, thereby providing enough evidence for the doubters.
A rise of three metres, will destroy most of our coastal plains, and or, the cities built on them; and, around 70% of the domestic economy!
Now,if one is to invest there, then maybe houseboats, would at least satisfy the precautionary principle, or serve us well, when next we have another one in one thousand year, floods?
Perhaps as early as next summer?
When perhaps we could experience, yet another La Nina, weather event?
Is the fact we seem to be having more of these, down to climate change, or just natural variation?
In any event, what harm is done, preparing for either; but particularly, if there's a buck to be made, just doing so?
Rhrosty.

Fhrosty, gravity is a scientific theory. Are you going to stand under an apple tree while somebody is shaking the tree which has ripe fruit. In other words many hypotheses have been been made and found to be untrue until a theory is established. A theory is neither a guess or a hypothesis but supported by empirical data.

Here on Climateprogress is an offer of $10,000 for anybody to prove that anthropogenic climate change is not happening. The challenge has been made by a physicist. My guess is you would need to show a theory that carbon dioxide created from fossil fuel has no impact to sunlight. Fossil fuels are virtually carbon sequestered into the earth over millions of years, in geological terms I guess we are using it in the blink of an eyelid.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/23/3451810/physicist-offers-climate-denier-reward/

Bugsy says: 'There's a logical fallacy at the end of Don's article. He seems to be saying that there's something wrong with the 'climate change message' because there is still a (now politically powerful) minority that disagree with it.'

I didn't say anything about 'a politically powerful minority'. What I tried to say was that the learned academies, the government, all political parties (the Coalition up to Abbott's appointment as Leader, and his government still says that 'it accepts the science', whatever that means) and the mainstream media (even The Australian said that it accepted the science of global warming and published very little dissenting material until quite recently) have been preaching the same sermon for a long time. Yet the electorate has not bought the take-home message. Why not? My suggestion is that the message was oversold, exaggerated, and devoid of real substance.