I was travelling yesterday, and saw the piece first late last night.

First, let me thank the author for his courteous critique. Courtesy is so often absent from discussions about 'climate change'.

Second, he is perfectly right about my error in saying that Australia was free of tornadoes. It was an error of fact. I had in mind the vision of the American tornadoes, which I first saw in The Wizard of Oz. I was corrected at once in the comments when I published the piece on my website a couple of years ago.

Third, I was unaware that we in Australia virtually do what the New Zealanders do with respect to adaptation. Perhaps I was unaware because we don't hear about such a co-ordinated approach to all forms of weather crisis. I agree entirely that part of the problem is that we allow people to build on land that is plainly subject to flood or fire. I've written a few pieces on that subject, too.

Fourth, I agree that scientists should point out what science can show, and leave the policy decisions to those who have that responsibility. If only it were so neat! The author must be aware of the scores of scientists, like David Karoly, Roger Jones, Will Steffen and others in this country, and their counterparts overseas, who advocate fossil fuel reduction as though the full weight of science is behind them. But it's not. The IPCC's AR5 is full of how much uncertainty there is.

Fifth, The Australian has only recently given space to climate change sceptics, and it is a small paper in terms of circulation. The ABC and the Fairfax press simply support the orthodoxy, unquestioningly.

Finally, I think my position is much as it has been for half a century. I grew up in the country, first joined the Country Party, left it when I went overseas, and never re-joined or joined another party. I am sympathetic to the emotional core of both major parties, like so many other Australians, sceptical of most claims, and a meritocratic democrat, if that makes sense.

>”Only secondarily do [climate scientists] tend to involve themselves in prescriptions and then they do not necessarily canvas the whole range of possible actions.”
That statement is not correct. Do an objective, unbiased review of the mass of advocacy by the leading climate scientists and you will recognise how wrong that statement is. For example, begin with the ‘Father of AGW’, James Hansen. He is the great scaremonger, exaggerator and alarmist. He has been an activist and protester for 30 years. And his disciple, Al Gore, added and abetted by James Hansen at every stage, has done untold damage to climate science as a discipline, and the reputation of scientists by his advocacy and extremism. James Hansen, in his book “Storms of my Grandchildren” talks about the oceans evaporating like on planet Venus and calls coal trains “deaths trains”. Actually coal trains support: life, water supply, food supply, health, prosperity and improving standard of living. Hansen is one of many activists for a cause they believe in. There are many others. Look at the leading IPCC scientists involved in the “Hockey Stick” fiasco and the Climate-Gate emails window into what the climate scientist activists are doing. Look at this example of 13 articles written by Australia’s top and best known climate scientists published on the Conversation. Note the emotive, scaremongering nonsense put out by the top Australian climate scientists. https://theconversation.com/the-false-the-confused-and-the-mendacious-how-the-media-gets-it-wrong-on-climate-change-1558 (scroll down to see the list of 13 articles and links to them).

The author talks about extreme weather events and he seems to believe that human’s GHG emissions are or will make them worse. But what evidence is there that man’s GHG emissions are effecting the frequency or intensity of extreme weather events? Even the IPCC AR5 has back pedalled on this claim. And there seems to be persuasive empirical evidence suggesting the climate is less volatile when warmer (see, for example, Figure 15:21 here: http://eprints.nuim.ie/1983/1/McCarron.pdf ). This shows rapid changes in temperatures that occurred in Ireland (and Greenland and Iceland) from 16,000 years ago to present (e.g. from ice age conditions to near current temperatures in 9 years and 7 years in two events, but many others too). It shows rapid, large magnitude changes occurred up to about 11,000 years ago but much more stable since (i.e. more stable in warmer times). The text and other figures show life thrives in warmer and warming times and struggles when colder and cooling (all shown in the paleo record in this chapter of the Geology of Ireland). This does not support the contention that extreme weather events are worse when the planet is warmer.

Making unsupported assertions about increasing extreme weather events and implying they are caused by human’s GHG emissions is unpersuasive without evidence attributing such events to increased GHG concentrations in the atmosphere

[One of the links in my previous comment didn't show as hypertext, so I'll repost the relevant part of it and added to my explanation.]

>”Only secondarily do [climate scientists] tend to involve themselves in prescriptions and then they do not necessarily canvas the whole range of possible actions.”

This is assertion is not supported by the evidence (see more in previous comment). I suggest the author is seriously misunderstanding what is actually happening in the group-think and herd-mentality that is climate science and academia.

Note the activism and the use of emotive, scaremongering, exaggeration and alarmism by the leading Australian climate scientists: https://theconversation.com/the-false-the-confused-and-the-mendacious-how-the-media-gets-it-wrong-on-climate-change-1558 (scroll down to see the list of 13 articles and links to them). Note also the 87 climate scientists, academics and other opinion leaders who endorsed this series of 13 articles: “Climate change is real: an open letter from the scientific community” https://theconversation.com/climate-change-is-real-an-open-letter-from-the-scientific-community-1808 .

When this series was posted on 'The Conversation' I was looking for credible, persuasive evidence and arguments about the impacts of AGW. They should have been contained in the article by Mike Sandiford: Part 4: “Our effect on the earth is real: how we’re geo-engineering the planet”. But what I found was an emotional tirade that can be boiled down to damage by plastic bag litter and the author’s perceived evilness of humans.

>”Thus we do not increase our resilience. Opinion leaders need to ensure that they do not fall prey to carelessness in these matters.”
I agree with that statement. But that is not an arguments for mitigation of GHG emissions if the mitigation policies will damage the economy (of individual countries and of the world) for no measureable benefit, or low probability of achieving the claimed benefits (where benefits means climate damages avoided).

>”The conservative-leaning Murdoch empire, for example, has been persistent in its scepticism and in its negative appraisal of the world's attempts to rein in climate change via such mechanisms as 'cap and trade' systems.”
That demonstrates the author’s bias. The Murdoch Press is the only one of Australia’s main media outlets doing good investigative journalism and presenting all sides. The Left media outlets (e.g. ABC, Fairfax) are not. They are propaganda agents for the Leftist’s causes

>”And outlets like OLO, entirely legitimately in a free-speech environment, give much space to those who are not in sync or sympathy with the 97%.”
If the author has fallen for the “97%” nonsense, he is indeed gullible and clearly has not kept up with the critiques of that discredited ‘work’

Peter
To fix your links remove the s

https://theconversation.com/the-false-the-confused-and-the-mendacious-how-the-media-gets-it-wrong-on-climate-change-1558

Becomes
http://theconversation.com/the-false-the-confused-and-the-mendacious-how-the-media-gets-it-wrong-on-climate-change-1558

Personal I think the link is spot on. I have yet to see a credible scientific argument against AGW.