Congratulations and thanks for gently correcting some matters of fact.

Too often, this discussion has degenerated into a slanging match where facts have been ignored.

There should be more of it - especially, public consideration not only of the 2 degree case, but also of the less probable yet still possible worse cases and for events further into the future than 2100AD. Exactly what should our preparations today be to meet the challenges of 10 metre sea level rise if/when ice caps melt at an increasing rate? At present, such a discussion is impossible, due to the loud cries of "It hasn't happened yet, so it won't happen ever", which is of course akin to the response from some quarters when the 1:0000 year flood or PMF (Probable Maximum Flood) is discussed.

I once heard a NSW SES regional controller from the Upper Hunter say that he only responds to the water which is in the river, which condemned the towns on that river to flooding before his Division would act. Flood first; response afterwards. Preparedness beyond training did not come into his personal commitment.

For the same reason that the SES needs to have resourced plans in place for a PMF, the world needs to plan for the more extreme and less probable climate events of all types, but especially relating to anthropogenic climate change.

To argue otherwise is pure folly.

I disagree with much in this article. Too much to address in one comment, or even in four. I’ll begin at the end.

The last sentence is a misrepresentation. It’s an often repeated lie, demonstrating this author makes errors of fact too and does not check his facts before making assertions.

>”I am also fearful about where conservatism is taking us, both in terms of the climate change debate and in what I see as our reluctance to take natural hazards as seriously as we should.”
I am concerned where the socialists/Left has been taking us and wants to continue to take us. The socialists support BANANA policies (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone) – e.g. no major dam construction for 30 years. And they support irrational, irresponsible, economically damaging policies that almost certainly will not deliver the claimed benefits (of climate damages avoided).

>”Above all I worry that conservatives discourage action on both climate change and the mitigation of and adaptation to the problems brought by natural hazards. Here they make real problems more difficult for following generations to tackle. Scepticism, an important quality in science and public debate, can drift into something bothersome ─ a near-automatic denial of science and the application of it, and perhaps even of reality.”

The assertion is unsupported. Conservatives are pragmatic realistic and rational. They realise the $20 billion per year we are spending on GHG emissions abatement will make no difference to the climate, now or ever. The left/socialists deny that. They are the real deniers. They deny the relevant facts.

Policy relevant climate questions:

These are some of the questions we need answers to. Climate scientists and CAGW believers continually avoid tackling them.

1. What is the value of Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and Transient Climate Response (TCR)?

2. Is ECS and TCR relevant given that climate changes suddenly [1], [2], [3], not as portrayed by IPCC’s smooth projections?

3. What effect will increasing atmospheric CO2-e concentration have on the climate - will it make the next sudden change happen sooner or later?
• Will it make the next sudden cooling happen sooner or later?
• Or will it cause a sudden warming event?
• What are the probability density functions for each?

4. Will it make the next sudden climate change less or more severe? (e.g. delay the onset of the next cooling and/or reduce its severity OR make the next sudden warming happen sooner and make it more severe)? What is the probability density function?

5. What would be the consequences of warming? What would be the consequences of cooling? What are the probability density functions?

6. What is the probability that the advocated mitigation policies would succeed in delivering the claimed benefits (climate damages avoided), given real world issues with implementing and maintaining such policies (e.g. carbon pricing)?
• To answer this question we need to understand the short- and medium-term economic impacts of the proposed policies for each nation state, and consider how each will respond so as to maximise its advantage (game theory) through the situations that could occur over the next century or so.

7. What is the probability that alternative polices are more likely to succeed (such as removing the political and regulatory impediments that are preventing the world from having low cost nuclear energ

maybe just some conservatives know that the moral outrage from the 'progressives' is hypocritical and fantasy. Usually when people deny their fallen nature they take up some other pseudo cause. gw is one of the finest examples. If you have not worked that out you understand very little about human nature.

We have had two decades of privilege for the folly of climate change. It is time for the People to rise, throw off their oppressors and end the monstrous subsidies that these decades of grant-snouting have created. Why should the poor and working classes continue to pay thousands per household to validate the moral sanctimony of the Green and the Chardonnay socialist?

Their models have failed. Their moralising propaganda has failed. We have 16 solid years of no climate change despite their predictions. They have faked and fudged their data long enough; the People employed the ballot box to remove the rent-seekers from Government. If Government is not up to the job, let the People act.

Fire fighters are very practical people, Australian Fire Fighters and their Californian counterparts have linked earlier onset of fires, and intensity of fires with anthropomorphic climate change. Deniers suggest they are only wanting to create more positions; but it is only in very recent times that they have been making these statements. Rainfall, temperature and drought all have an impact on creating the circumstances for bush fires. It translates to rapid growth, then drying off, creating the environment for big fires.

I have read Don Aitkin's political material in the past; also, but I'm disappointed in what he has been writing about climate change, it displays a lack of objectivity. I believe that some of what he writes is insulting to scientists; these being the climate specialists.

Regarding those who suggest that climate change scientists are feathering their own nests, I wonder whether there's the psychological process of projection happening. Those who deny what climate scientists are saying can only be said to have an opinion; they do not have all the evidence that scientists have to come with. John Hoard has stated that he doesn't believe in climate change due to faith. Having faith doesn't explain anything about permafrost melt and the results of that permafrost melt or any other matter that science brings up.

It is interesting that scientist in disciplines other than climate science are finding impacts in their areas of expertise of anthropogenic climate change.