Tony Abbott certainly outflanked the climate-liar Obama, in Obama’s attempt to promote the climate change fraud in the agenda, to the detriment of the true purpose of the G20.

Abbott is a very effective politician, and has put Australia in the forefront in combating the AGW fraud.

Humans contribute 3% of atmospheric CO2, and the science, ignored by the fraud promoters, shows that human emissions have a trivial effect, which is not measureable. There is no constructive basis, in science, for reduction of human emissions.

"Self-appointed pressure groups that breed around controversial questions".

That is very funny, does the author not understand the irony.

Leo one can only imagine you’re either trolling or you’re a pseudonym of Runner's, but you're certainly bringing the stupid.

‘morning Tom,

Thanks for the article although I’m curious as to how this was published in the Guardian? Not from their normal self referential network, are they now moving to “bob each way bet”?

Whatever is achieved by TA seems destined to be trashed by much of the media. Since winning that last election our media has set out to divide Australian’s by vexatious and contentious debate. Perhaps because those of the left feel threatened and losing their relevance? But they are winning their PR battle.

If we take into account what is presented by MSM to the public as information, then public opinion seems to be accurately reflected in public sentiment. If however, we were to make the public aware of what is actually happening it might be very different.

One of the best examples is that “we are being left behind by the rest of the world on climate change action”. What we never hear is just who it is that is leading?

The EU is the last bastion of binding emissions targets. The EU Commissioners recently announced a commitment to significantly increase emissions targets. These will be proposed in Paris at the 2015 round of talks. Sounds encouraging until one reads the small print “providing the rest of the major emitters sign up for binding commitments in Paris”? The EU is now isolated and they know it.

When are we going to hear about Germany’s proposal to withdraw from 2020 climate targets?

http://www.thegwpf.com/germany-announces-withdrawal-from-binding-2020-climate-targets/

China has already made is clear they will not agree to anything until 2030, The USA cannot and has already voted down Kyoto in 1998 by 95 to NIL, Russia and India won’t if China won’t, so there goes the EU commitment.

Given that the declared position from Japan, Australia, Canada and NZ is that they will not be signing up for binding targets, any hope of exhuming Kyoto seems more dependent on magic rather than reality. I’m with you and Ladbrokes.

So where are all these world leaders of climate change action?

Perhaps the well informed Cobber the Hound can tells us?

Abbott and the Coalition are playing the corporate game of delaying the inevitable and protecting the profits of their supporters, it's a tactic as old as the Industrial Revolution, whether it's cigarettes, asbestos or pollution really doesn't make any difference.

Actually Abbott looks like a pawn of big business.

I am not a great admirer of the US but one thing I envy them for is the ability to impeach a president which would be good to apply to a maverick Prime Minister.
Unfortunately we will have to suffer for just over another 3 years and hope that too much damage is not done in the meantime.

"Even as he continues to win plaudits from visiting Chinese and Indian leaders".
Well of course he would. He is intent on handing over the country to them on a plate.
If "Abbott will look like a genius for keeping Australia on the margins of yet another climate summit fiasco."
The rest of us must be ready for the funny farm.

Interesting how people construct their own reality about events. Tom makes a brave effort to salvage something for Tony Abbott from the G20 conference when many independent observers would say that he was completely finessed by Obama and Xi. The usual froth at the mouth climate change denialists have also been busy, even championing the so-called 'direct action' plan as something that will work. There are even those who belittle China's climate commitments. They should read Ross Gittins in today's SMH for a more balanced view. And the above comments about the EU in general and Germany in particular simply beggar belief for their profound ignorance.

For someone as generally sophisticated as Tom is, his inability to call Abbott on his profoundly ignorant and dangerous comments about Putin and Ukraine is surprising. The fact that the msm continually misrepresent the facts, and in significant areas totally fail to report even basic information, is no excuse. The neo-con narrative holds supreme and no deviation from the "official" version is allowed.

Tom also fails to mention the far more important meeting of APEC that preceded the G20. That meeting and a whole series of ancillary decisions by the major players there, and in both the SCO and BRICS outweigh the grandstanding of Abbott in terms of what is really happening by a large margin. Add Pepe Escobar to your reading for some real insights. Relying on the Oz media, in all its forms, is only a recipe for continuing ignorance.

Well, if merely opening your mouth to change socks is a sign of GENIUS, then Tony Abbott has got it in spades.
And no, I don't think he negotiated the FTA with china, but rather the hard working minister, beavering away unheralded in the background!
All credit and kudos where it's due! None where it's not!
Shame about the shirtfront, and just not having enough front to front up for it!
I reckon Putin would have done 'im like a dinner, or thrown 'im about like a flamin' rag doll?
A hairy chest and more than one budgie in the budgie smugglers, (maybe that's where he keeps his spare socks, or thinking equipment) counts for very little in the square ring!
Rhrosty

The hound:” you're certainly bringing the stupid.”
Yes, I knew my post would bring you out. No science, hound, no rational support for your position, just a baseless and ineffective attempt at ad hominem. You are as pathetic and ineffective as ever, hound
Abbott has wiped the floor with the climate frauds.

‘morning Robert LePage, Cobber the Hound, mac, James O’Neill, Rhrosty and Ross Gittins.

Tom made the point that if nothing happens in Paris next year, TA could look like a genius.

All you have to do is to evidence that the prospects for a new Kyoto in Paris next year are looking good. But not one of you has addressed the on topic issues.

I made statements that;

“The EU Commissioners recently announced a commitment to significantly increase emissions targets to be proposed in Paris at the 2015 round of talks. But that these targets are providing “that the rest of the major emitters sign up for binding commitments in Paris”?

“China has already made is clear they will not agree to anything until 2030, The USA cannot and has already voted down Kyoto in 1998 by 95 to NIL, Russia and India won’t if China won’t, so there goes the EU commitment.”

“Federal Economics Minister Sigmar Gabriel (SPD) has abandoned the requirement of cutting 40 percent of CO2 emissions compared to 1990 levels by 2020”.

“The German governments announcement was widely covered in the German, French and UK media”.

So, all you have to do, along with the SMH, is to show that these are NOT statements of fact.

Good luck and over to you.

If, as stated here, China will not commit to anything until 2030, and Obama's pledge is contingent on approval from a hostile Republican Senate and House, and neither Russia nor India will do anything without China, then what's left?
Whether or not the climate is changing due at least in part to activity by what is now 7 billion humans and counting, we seem determined to wager that nothing needs be done, at least for now. It's a big bet. We are, in effect, putting the farm on it. If we have it right, all to the good. But if we have it wrong, then those watching their lands disappear on the world's low-lying islands might soon have company.
Big winds, anyone? Here's an experiment - watch water heat up in a sauce pan on the stove and pay attention to the increased activity in the air just above the water. Now think global. We live in a closed system, and there is no guarantee that I can think of that says that what is today will necessarily continue thru tomorrow.

spindoc quotes this as the EU policy.

“The EU Commissioners recently announced a commitment to significantly increase emissions targets to be proposed in Paris at the 2015 round of talks. But that these targets are providing “that the rest of the major emitters sign up for binding commitments in Paris”?

This is misleading because the full policy is that they will reduce emissions by 20% from 1990 levels regardless of what others do and by a further 10% should other nations come on board.

“For 2020, the EU has committed to cutting its emissions to 20% below 1990 levels. This commitment is one of the headline targets of the Europe 2020 growth strategy and is being implemented through a package of binding legislation.

The EU has offered to increase its emissions reduction to 30% by 2020 if other major emitting countries in the developed and developing worlds commit to undertake their fair share of a global emissions reduction effort.”

Quoted from:-
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/brief/eu/index_en.htm

'morning warmair,

Thank you for confirming that the EU has proposed further reductions in emissions but that they are indeed contingent upon the major emitters signing up for mandatory targets. Isn't that what I said?

I don't need you to confirm what I said, you need to refute it.

You failed to mention the German government statements on their plan to abandon their 40pc target and what that means to any hope of a new Kyoto. Nor did you address the fact that the U.S. cannot sign Kyoto, that China has pulled the pin until 2030 or that Russia and India will refuse to sign.

This means that the resurrection of Kyoto in Paris and any new targets for the EU are off the table.

I say again, if you think that the Paris round will agree to get new targets, then show how? If not then Tom Switzer is spot on and TA will look a genius.

Cobber the hound

feel free to stay with the dumbed down group think. You obviously are very young or a very slow learner.

'morning runner,

You are being very kind to Cobber when you suggest that he/she/it is either very young or a slow learner, as are the rest of those whose God has foresaken them, like Robert LePage, mac, James O’Neill, Rhrosty and Ross Gittins.

They are currently struggling with the reality of the evidence with which they were presented. Hence their absense in response.

Young and naive doesn't seem to cut it somehow. Four simple statements from official government sources and much coverage by European media has them stumped. That is what happens when your religion abandons you.

God bless the righteous for they shall inherit the truth. Or to be more precise, those who speak bull dust will end up with bad breath.

It seems to me that one of the best summaries of the evidence is provided by Michael Klare in his new essay on Tomdispatch The New Congress & Planetary Disaster. An essay which, to my mind at least, proves that the mad-monk is definitely not a genius.

One thing "reported" in the news was re how the mad-monk wasnt particularly interested in what may happen in 16 years time. If this is so it shows how myopic his short term (lack of) vision truly is.

By contrast, as far as I know Chinese thinkers and strategists instinctively think and plan their present-time actions and strategies on a long term/time basis.

Speaking of long-term thinking and vision why not check out this website: http://longnow.org

It really has come down to those who discount AGW being rightly regarded as fools. I'm not sure this means we can totally discount everything they say but it reveals a mental defect that makes it very difficult to give any of their pronouncements any kind of veracity or regard.

When one of these people is my representative, and speaks for me on the international stage, he/she becomes and embarrassing fool - most certainly cringeworthy.

And when they roll out that tired, hackneyed phrase - 'In Australia's best interest' when they really mean in the interests of the mining oligarchs of our country they cement themselves and depressing, embarrassing fools.

Interesting post SteeleRedux. You sere that is exactly how I feel about those who are simple enough to still believe in the fraud.

I find it difficult to understand how anyone of average intelligence, who has looked into the scenario, can still believe it now. I wonder if anyone promoting the whole thing are actually gravy train riders, obtaining some benefit, or have some agenda to use it for some misguided social purpose.

Every bit of "evidence" the promoters have ever presented has ultimately been found to be wrong, or a con job. Every projection has had to be reduced, now to nothing.

Yep, Tony will be long remembered as the first senior politician to have called the fraud for what it is.

Dear Hasbeen,

Being from the far right of politics you unfortunately have very little choice but to be pigeon-holed exactly where you are.

Politics has always driven the sentiment on AGW, the more conservative you are the more likely you are to reject the science around AGW. What is interesting is the turnaround in the US. Sure under Bush the rejection of the science of AGW grew but after Obama was elected the swing was reversed. According to PEW research “In 2009, 35% of Republicans, 53% of independents and 75% of Democrats said there was solid evidence of rising temperatures on earth. Today, half of Republicans (50%), 62% of independents and 88% of Democrats say this.”

You sir are so deeply cemented by your politics in your rejection of the science that to think you could ever change your mind no matter what evidence was placed before you is utterly fanciful. But you are not our leader, Tony Abbott is.

China, Europe and most of the other countries of the world are taking active and positive positions on the need for action on Climate Change. Our depressing, embarrassing, fool we have for a prime minister has become an absolute laughing stock and the shame of these years will take some repairing.

Robert le Page seems unaware that a delinquent PM can be dismissed. He should look up the case of Googh Whitless.
Daffy,Abbott will appear a comparative genius, outflanking the dunces pushing the climate fraud. The article does not say he is a genius.

Our competent climate scientist, Robert Carter, has a relevant observation:
“Exhibiting a pragmatic courage that is rare among Western leaders, Mr. Abbott refused to make an Australian contribution to the U.N. Green Climate Fund, as urged by Mr. Obama. At the same time, he pointed out that “coal is going to be, now and for the foreseeable future, a very important part of the world’s energy needs. It has to be, because if it’s not, we are never going to provide energy to the 1.3 billion who don’t have it.”
Donating $3 billion to the fund, as President Obama also announced, makes the matters worse, for most of the money will undoubtedly be spent subsidizing environmentally damaging and otherwise unattainably expensive sources of energy, such as wind power, in impoverished nations.
New scientific papers appear nearly every week that show that the claimed link between carbon-dioxide emissions and dangerous global warming is imaginary. Accordingly, the link between climate-change policy and energy policy is thereby invalidated, but this persistently escapes global-warming pundits.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/18/bob-carter-tom-harris-obamas-global-warming-propag/?page=2

And Steele is back, his post demonstrating that he still steadfastly disregards science, and continues to be a fraud-backer.

Quite an hilarious thread.

Abbott is outflanked, outclassed and humiliated by his own crassness...and we have a battalion of the usual suspects on OLO telling us he's a genius!

Lol!

Next up you'll be telling me Christopher Pyne is up for the Nobel Prize for today initiating a petition to stop ABC cuts in South Australia...after he voted with his govt to cut funding to the ABC.

Dingbats, the lot of 'em....

I see Obamas promises are already working results in America

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/lakeeffect-snow-storms-the-weather-phenomenon-paralysing-the-us/story-fni0xs61-1227128275925#social-comments

what a joke the warming religion is.

Dear Leo Lane,

Rob Carter is not a competent climate scientist is he, in fact he is not even a climate scientist at all, and to put him forth as such is fraudulent. So why did you do it? What motivates you to do something so patently dishonest? I mean you may well be a quite upstanding citizen in all other aspects of your life but this issue has you willing to be so thoroughly deceptive in your conduct.

It truly has me at a loss.

Unfortunately, runner...you display the full spectrum of your ignorance on this subject by posting stuff like that.

And yet you'd ridicule climate scientists who've repeatedly stressed that global warming means an increased frequency of extreme and unusual weather events.

("Snow = no global warming" is about as technical as it gets with you - yes?)

Yep it's been a fine earner for our & the US lefty conmen.

Obama has used the thing to transfer billions to his campaign backers, who went into the alternate energy industries.

A number received half a billion in taxpayer funds, before going bankrupt, but not before paying their founders handsomely from those public funds.

I wonder what steele's angle or con is. You can bet he has been making a quid courtesy of Rudd/Gillard & the taxpayer.

Hasbeen,

"A number received half a billion in taxpayer funds..."

Really...in that case, I wonder how much the "righties" are pocketing considering the world spends $550 billion per year on fossil fuel subsidies.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/12/renewables-are-replacing-coal-just-not-fast-enough-to-save-the-planet/

Steele’s assertions are without veracity. Having no science or rational basis for his position he reverts to the standard fraud-backer technique of baseless, scurrilous ad hominem.
An extract of Climate scientist Robert Carter’s background follows:
“Professor Bob Carter is an Emeritus Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA, Melbourne). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist, environmental scientist and writer with more than 40 years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999.
He is currently Chief Science Advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition and an Emeritus Fellow of the Institute of Public Affairs.

His articles have been published in Quadrant Magazine, The Australian, The Age, the Sydney Morning Herald, the Wellington Dominion Post, The Washington Times and the UK Sunday Telegraph. and a personal research publication record of more than 100 papers in international science journals on topics which include sea-level and climate change.

Bob Carter's current research on climate change, sea-level change and stratigraphy is based on field studies of Cenozoic sediments (last 65 million years) from the Southwest Pacific region, especially the Great Barrier Reef and New Zealand, and includes the analysis of marine sediment cores collected during ODP Leg 181.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/
I have, on at least one other thread made Steele aware of Carter’s background, so Steele’s misinformation is deliberate.

Poirot

'And yet you'd ridicule climate scientists who've repeatedly stressed that global warming means an increased frequency of extreme and unusual weather events. '

and yet in the IPCC own words Poirot back in 2001

'. In its 2001 Third Assessment Report, for example, the IPCC claimed “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.” '

the warmist really want it both or all ways because they just can't get it right.

just a little more history for you Poirot. I know its extremely embarassing for warmist but how else can we stop the ridiculous waste of money by the warmist industry. Abbott actually looks very bright by rejecting this nonsense.

'The same phenomenon took place in the United States just last winter. As record cold and snowfall was pummeling much of North America, warming theorists contradicted all of their previous forecasts and claimed that global warming was somehow to blame. Among them: White House Science “Czar” John Holdren. “A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues,” he claimed.

'That assertion, of course, is exactly the opposite of what the UN “settled science” IPCC predicted in its 2001 global-warming report, which claimed that the planet would see “warmer winters and fewer cold spells, because of climate change.” Ironically, perhaps, Holdren warned decades ago that human CO2 emissions would lead to a billion deaths due to global warming-fueled global cooling — yes, cooling, which he said would lead to a new ice age by 2020.'

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/18888-embarrassing-predictions-haunt-the-global-warming-industry

This getting better and better, I'm not sure who is winning Runner or Leo.

Leo's suggesting the "Australian" newspaper is a science journal and the IPA is some sort of research body.

Or is it runner trying to pretend he understands anything in the IPPC report.

We all have to remember that most of the world climate scientist are lairs and are hiding the truth. Do not worry Runner and Leo are here to save us.

Next week they are going to cure cancer, cause you know it's only a scam to make doctors rich, and they'll do it while smoking 2 packs a day.

I am still here but I am cutting this off for me from now on.
It is obvious that the denialists are never going to admit defeat on this, it is a state of mind.
So this "discussion" is meaningless and is never going to go anywhere and is therefore a waste of my valuable time and brain power.
I have decided that there is never going to be a concerted action on this as in WW2, so it is not going to be solved. Consequently it is inevitable that we will go past the point of no return and possible the extinction of the human race and of course most other life.
The cockroaches will prove their superiority over humans by surviving.
I am not concerned by this as I am nearing the end of my crack at life and I have no progeny to worry about.
Abbott is not a cockroach so he and his will go kaput as well.

One last word

Denying problems when we don’t like the political solutions
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141106132313.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Ftop_news%2Ftop_environment+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Top+Environment+News%29
November 6, 2014 Duke University
There may be a scientific answer for why conservatives and liberals disagree so vehemently over the existence of issues like climate change and specific types of crime.
A new study from Duke University finds that people will evaluate scientific evidence based on whether they view its policy implications as politically desirable. If they don’t, then they tend to deny the problem even exists.

The reaction of the fraud-backers to facing the fact that they have made fools of themselves is amusing.

The hound dissolves into meaningless gibberish, making even less sense than usual.

Robert le Page still has the temerity and ignorance to use the term “denialist”. What are we supposed to be denying, Robert? You have no science. You were invited to refer us to science which showed any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. You failed to do so because the science shows that the human effect is trivial. It is not measurable, so is not scientifically noticed. Robert says he is too old to care, so all that he has proved, like any fraud-backer, is his dishonesty.
Poirot has shown that she is not only dishonest, but not even aware that the IPCC conceded that there is no link from global warming to extreme weather events.
Steele absented himself from climate threads for some time after it was established that he had no other basis for his fraud-backing than dishonesty, but he could not resist coming back to make a fool of himself again. He is a sad case, but not the only one with an unconscious drive to humiliate himself, by a display of character flaws.

Leo Lane,

"Poirot has shown that she is not only dishonest...."

LOl!...no climate thread would be complete without Leo proving once again that his entire knowledge on the subject consists of calling people names.

"Tony Abbott is a genius."

He certainly is!

It's not easy to host the biggest international summit and come out of it with a "Newspoll" two-party preferred showing LNP 45% - ALP 55%.

That takes some kinda doin'.

The problem faced by Leo, Runner and their ilk in supporting Abbott in his retrograde views on science (among many other things) is that the man himself is a constantly moving target. We read in this morning's SMH for example, that he now embraces the reality of climate change and wants some positive outcomes from next year's Paris conference. Thereby leaving all his acolytes gasping in the wake of his new policy direction.

By the way, the science points to climate change, which is rather different from global warming. If you doubt the reality of that you simply have no conception of Earth's 3-4 billion year history. The challenge, surely, is to recognise the reality of ongoing climate change and adjust our behaviour and policies accordingly.

"Robert? You have no science. You were invited to refer us to science which showed any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. You failed to do so because the science shows that the human effect is trivial. It is not measurable, so is not scientifically notice"

Dear Leo, I do not answer with a scientific reply because it is not science to look at the state of the worlds climate and not see the trees for the forest.
If we are down to disparaging remarks, then I suppose I can just answer all of your attacks by just saying, "troll".

Tony Abbott is going to look like a genius after he has called on the world to set "strong, binding emissions reductions targets in Paris".

Or is he? Because everyone knows that all those who suggest taking action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are frauds.

Or something.

Robert le Page:“I suppose I can just answer all of your attacks by just saying, "troll".”
That is straight out of the fraud- backer’s manual, Robert; where you are cornered by the truth, make an ad hominem attack on the person propagating the truth.
You were not asked for a scientific answer, but for a reference to science which justifies your support of the assertion that human emissions cause catastrophic global warming. You are aware that this is what you support, are you, with no science to justify it?
Abbott has done a good job in setting up the dunces for the Paris talks. He wants every country to commit itself, and meet its targets. He wants nothing to be agreed which will cost jobs. The talks will, of course, fail, but Abbott’s conduct will be beyond reproach. And Agronomist might one day understand Abbott’s capacity for politics.

Dear Leo Lane,

Bob Carter is not a climate scientist because he has no formal qualifications in the field.

Bob Carter is directly funded by the Heartland Institute which relies on donations from fossil fuel tycoons like the Koch brothers.

Bob carter has published no papers on climate science in any Climate Science journals, in fact he hasn't published any in any reputable scientific journal at all, except perhaps co-authoring with two others in the Journal of Geophysical Research which is a story in itself.

Yet you again asserted he was a climate scientist. Why are you doing this? It is so obviously wrong but you stand by it. What is the psychology involved? I am genuinely interested.

So, Leo lane (and others),

Can you explain to me when Abbott comes out with things like this:

"Emerging with Hollande he declared it was he who raised the subject in their talks. "Yes, we discussed climate change. I raised climate change," he volunteered even before a question was asked.

"It's very important that we get strong and effective outcomes from the conference in Paris next year.

"It is a subject that the world needs to tackle as a whole.

"We all are doing what we can, Australia as well, and we need a strong and effective agreement from Paris next year."

And he went on.

"I think it's very important that we don't have another disaster like Copenhagen and it's vital that the Paris Conference be a success, unlike Copenhagen."

Explaining the G20 communique, Abbott said it was an important subject that was always going to be in there because Australia had circulated the first draft expressly mentioning climate."

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/abbott-decides-that-climate-change-thing-needs-a-dust-after-all-20141120-11qe4n.html#ixzz3JdyOTGFV

Is he merely attempting to make up lost ground, having been wrong-footed by the rest of the industrial world - and left looking like a dill?

Or is it his diabolical genius at work again...merely giving lip-service to the subject....which of course would be dishonest.

Here's another bunch of whackos who can't see Abbott's a genius.

"UK Tories slam Tony Abbott on climate policy"

"The attitude of Prime Minister Tony Abbott to the global challenges of climate change is "eccentric", "baffling" and "flat earther", according to a group of senior British Conservatives.

The group, including Prime Minister David Cameron's Minister for Energy and a former Thatcher Minister and chairman of the Conservative Party, says Mr Abbot's position on climate change represents a betrayal of the fundamental ideals of Conservatism and those of his political heroine, Margaret Thatcher."

"According to Lord Deben, chairman of the independent Climate Change Commission and a minister in both the Thatcher and Major governments, Australia will come under increasing market pressure to respond to the global shift toward renewable energy.

A former chairman of the British Conservative Party, Lord Deben said Mr Abbott has betrayed the fundamental tenets of conservatism itself.

"I have no doubt that people like David Cameron will be saying to Tony Abbott 'look conservatives are supposed to conserve, they are supposed to hand on to the next generation something better than they received themselves'."

Tim Yeo, chairman of the UK's parliamentary select committee on energy and climate change and a former environment minister under John Major, likened those who question the existence and the science of climate change as "the flat earthers of the 16th century".

"Some of us are very perplexed. I was last in Australia at the beginning of last year, before the election and had conversations with people on both sides of the political divide. I was amazed at some of the views."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/uk-tories-slam-tony-abbott-on-climate-policy-20141120-11qos6.html

Geniuses are always misunderstood.

Steele, Robert Carter has spent 40 years studying, researching, teaching and working in the field of paleoclimatology.
Paleoclimatology is the study of climate change on the scale of the entire history of the Earth. Since you are “genuinely interested” you might watch the video where emeritus professor Carter deals with the assertion that he is not a climate scientist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRCISn1KfKQ

Your pretence that you are stupid enough to believe that Carter is not a climate scientist is a standard ploy of fraud-backers whereby they consider that the lies they tell can be designated as emanating from stupidity and not dishonesty.

“Bob Carter has acted as an expert witness on climate change before the U.S. Senate Committee of Environment & Public Works, the Australian and N.Z. parliamentary Select Committees into emissions trading and in a meeting in parliament house, Stockholm. He was also a primary science witness in the U.K. High Court case of Dimmock v. H.M.'s Secretary of State for Education, the 2007 judgment which identified nine major scientific errors in Mr. Al Gore's film "An Inconvenient Truth".
Professor Carter has a personal research publication record of more than 100 papers in international science journals on taxonomic palaeontology, palaeoecology, the growth and form of the molluscan shell, New Zealand and Pacific geology, stratigraphic classification, sequence stratigraphy, sedimentology, the Great Barrier Reef, Quaternary geology, and sea-level and climate change. His current research on climate change, sea-level change and stratigraphy is based on field studies of Cenozoic sediments (last 65 million years) from the Southwest Pacific region, especially the Great Barrier Reef and New Zealand.”
http://climatescienceinternational.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=394
The fraud-backer Michael Mann, of "hockey stick" infamy is a paleoclimatoligist. Is he a "climate scientist, Steele?

Poirot,

You published exactly the letter I was going to write, quoting the British Tories about our "eccentric" (very kind word) Prime Minister. I have come to the conclusion that Abbott will say and do anything if he (and Credlin) perceive that there is an electoral advantage in doing so. He finally twigged that the G20 had exposed him to be the scientific neanderthal that he is (along with his devout apologists on OLO) and calculated that he was losing votes rapidly. Hence the volte face on climate when he appeared with Hollande. I don't believe for a nanosecond that he has truly had a conversion. He is frankly no more than a grubby little opportunist.

James O'Neill,

"..... I don't believe for a nanosecond that he has truly had a conversion. He is frankly no more than a grubby little opportunist."

Unfortunately for Australia, that sums up his recent shape-shifting perfectly.

Dear Leo Lane,

Calling Carter a climate scientist is like calling an archaeologist who examines mummified remains a medical doctor.

If is just the personal study of AGW that makes the grade then you and I are just as much climate scientists as he is.

For you to keep propagating this myth is a demonstrable fraud of which you should be thoroughly ashamed.

As to the video it is 90 minutes long and I am not going to devote that much of my life to ingesting trash, but I will undertake to look at the part where he attempts to justify calling himself a climate scientist if you let me know how far into the clip I should look.

Steele, I suppose you mean that to apply to Mann as well as Carter? You have just stripped a leading fraud-backer of his self- assumed status of climate scientist. Mann’s qualification is the same as Carter’s

I cannot see that your analogy is appropriate.
A most important element in the understanding of climate is its history and development, as well as its current state. An anthropologist would have little understanding of human beings by simply making current observations without first studying the history and evolution of humans.

Carter’s clarification of his expertise is early in the video.

and then we have Flannery who for years the warmist were happy to quote until making a fool of himself so many times.

btw any snow been sighted lately in US & Europe. What a joke. The only denialist are the supporters of totally false prophecy.

Dear Leo Lane,

You said;

“Mann’s qualification is the same as Carter’s”.

You sir are are either joking or a deluded fool.

Mann - Attended Berkeley majoring in Physics and Mathematics. Received a Master of Science and Master of Philosophy in Physics.

Carter - Obtained a B.Sc. (Hons) in geology from the University of Otago in 1963

Mann - Joined Yale obtaining a Master of Philosophy in Geology and Geophysics with his research focussing on natural variability and climate oscillations. As a graduate student was part of the National Centre for Atmospheric Research's Global Statistics Report. While still working on his PhD he co-authored a paper "Global Interdecadal and Century-Scale Climate Oscillations During the Past Five Centuries" which was published by Nature in November 1995. Obtained his PhD in Geology and Geophysics with his thesis being 'A study of ocean-atmosphere interaction and low-frequency variability of the climate system' .

Carter - Completed a Ph.D. in paleontology from the University of Cambridge in 1968. His doctoral thesis was titled, The Functional Morphology of Bivalved Mollusca.

I could go on. Carter does not hold a candle to Mann either in academic qualifications, scientific publications or awards especially those directly relating To climatology. He is very much a minnow in comparison.

Steele, both Mann and Carter are paleoclimatologists. Carter has an excellent world reputation and has given evidence on climate before the US Senate. He was also the expert witness on climate in a UK court case where he identified a number of the climate lies in Al Gores fraudulent film, “An Inconvenient Truth”
Mann has an unsavoury reputation as a “climate scientist”:
“… Daily Telegraph article was covered in the US by various outlets, including Fox News, which covered the Daily Telegraph story in an article entitled Top Climate Scientist Under Fire for ‘Exaggerating’ Global Warming”, complete with large photograph of Mann.
The article contained commentary that was critical of both Mann and the Penn State inquiries, including the following:
Britain’s top statistician absolved U.K. scientists following the climate-data scandal — and blasted U.S. researcher Michael Mann for exaggerating the size of global warming.
An inquiry by a panel of scientists into the behavior and methodologies of researchers at Britain’s East Anglia University found Britain’s climatologists scatterbrained and sloppy, but ultimately innocent of intentionally skewing climate data. But one of the top scientists selected for the panel slammed the methodologies used by Penn State climatologist Michael Mann to devise his infamous “Hockey Stick ” “
http://climateaudit.org/2014/02/17/mann-and-the-oxburgh-panel/

Do you still wish to pretend, Steele, that you are stupid enough to deny that Carter is a climate scientist? You have no rational basis to deny it.

Dear Leo Lane,

You wrote;

“Carter has an excellent world reputation”

Rubbish, I don't know what his reputation is like in the world of bi-valved molluscs but from my reading in the world of climate science the man is regarded as a joke and someone who is taking money from the fossil fuel industry to spruik his brand of crap.

Even that scurrilous organisation of which he is a lobbyist, the Heartland Institute, doesn't refer to him as a climate scientist.
http://heartland.org/robert-m-carter

“Australia’s climate sceptic movement - from Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones to the Sydney Institute and the Coalition’s skeptic rump - has relied on a small pool of academics who cast doubt on the science of anthropogenic global warming (i.e. climate change caused by humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions). These academics are usually male, usually older, are often geologists and are sometimes semi-retired. Some have published little on climate in peer-reviewed academic publications.”

“Now that pool is two men smaller. Professor Murry Salby has been controversially terminated by Macquarie University, and Professor Bob Carter, who was an adjunct research fellow at James Cook University, has also been axed (the university says his term expired).”
http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/07/12/censorship-climate-sceptics-culled-from-universities/?wpmp_switcher=mobile

The only time he has been published on the subject of climate change in a scientific journal of note was as co-author on a paper that was roundly condemned.

My point about Carter being an anthropologist compared to Mann the MD stands. Mann has the mathematics and physics qualifications to model and investigate the 'living state'' of the current climate and the impact of GHGs. Carter does not.

Thankfully without his tenure it might be harder for the skeptics to get paid misinformers, lobbyists, like Carter into inquiries and the media.

Abbott already is looking like a genius, at least compared to the last couple of tenants in the Lodge.

That is why the left is so desperately trying to drag him down. They know that if he gets a second term, his success will become so obvious that he will be there as long as Menzies was.

It has been quite a joy watching the man grow into the job, after watching the last two twits sink deeper into failure by the day.

Steele, Miranda Devine answers your nonsense about Carter’s funding:
“Carter is paid for time-consuming professional work as co-editor of a Heartland publication that rivals the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment report. He reads scientific papers, summarises them, and collates them for Heartland’s nongovernmental international panel on climate change report. For this he is paid $1667 a month. Mammalogist Tim Flannery is paid 10 times more by Julia Gillard to make pop predictions about catastrophic climate change that never seem to eventuate, and he is hailed as a great savant.” And
“In any case, he(Carter) may have the last laugh; a cartoonist in The Age noted the irony of Carter’s position. In the cartoon, Gillard is berating Flannery, not for being “so wrong about water shortages now that we’re drowning in the stuff”, but because “I want to know why I pay you 10 times what Bob Carter gets and he wins the argument!””
Miranda also mentions the smearing of Heartland: “The demonisation of Heartland as some sort of powerful financier of climate terror is farcical.
Its entire budget is $7.7 million, only a quarter of which goes into climate projects. That is a drop in the ocean compared to the billions available to the Goliaths on the other side.
Carter estimates conservatively the climate alarm PR industry is worth about $11 billion each year.
The combined budgets of sceptic groups trying to inject balance into the climate debate would be no more than $20 million.
Heartland makes an impact, not because of money, but because of the power of its ideas, the logic of its arguments and the intellects of the experts it attracts.”

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/mirandadevine/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/smears_and_fears_in_a_climate_of_dirty_tricks/

Mann is suing a climate scientist for a remark to the effect that Mann, for his work should not be in a university but in a penitentiary. He also sued Mark Steyn for telling the truth about him, and Steyn has counter-sued. Mann is a very busy fraud-backer, and certainly not of good repute.

Dear Hasbeen,

I note the 'when' seems to have been relegated to an 'if' Abbott gets back in. Congratulations on the realistic approach.

Dear Leo Lane,

Are you seriously touting the Heartland Institute as credible? That is the second laugh you have given me today.

Here is what a Texan Judge had to say about Tim Blast Heartland's CEO in August;

“"Mr. Joseph Bast, president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, testified for the Intervenors regarding the Texas Taxpayers’ Savings Grant Programs (“TTSGP”), a school voucher bill that failed in the 82nd Legislative Session. As a threshold matter, this Court finds that Mr. Bast is not a credible witness and that he did not offer reliable opinions in this matter. While Mr. Bast described himself as an economist, he holds neither undergraduate nor graduate degrees in economics, and the highest level of education he completed was high school. Mr. Bast testified that he is 100% committed to the long-term goal of getting government out of the business of educating its own voting citizens. Further, his use of inflammatory and irresponsible language regarding global warming, and his admission that the long term goal of his advocacy of vouchers is to dismantle the “socialist” public education system further undermine his credibility with this Court."
http://www.co.travis.tx.us/courts/civil/district/pdfs/school-finance-findings-conclusions.pdf

Seems for this lobbying firm at least overstating one's qualifications in a particular field is not only the habit of retired geologists from Australia.

@SteeleRedux. You are never going to persuade Leo Lane and his ilk. They are invincible in their ignorance. They will still be screaming words to the effect that climate change is a leftist fraudulent trick when sea levels are lapping at their front door.

Ironic isn't it that he and his mates happily label me a conspiracy theorist when they are advancing the proposition that 95+% of the world's recognised climate scientists (not stooges of the Christian fundamentalist fringe like the Heartland Institute) must all have conspired to reach the same general conclusions.

@Hasbeen. You obviously inhabit some parallel universe where Abbott is popular, successful and likely to win the next election. In truth the man is a chronic liar, an embarrassment in the international arena, and odds on favourite to be replaced by one of his ambitious but no more talented sidekicks before the election.

@SteeleRedux,

You are a masochist for even engaging with Leo Lane. He/she is a "trained by Heartland" contrarian who can only stay on message; obfuscation, denial and ridicule are all valid weapons of the "denier industry".

Taken straight from the playbook of Big Tobacco, the script goes on the same trajectory...cite experts like Bob Carter (even a rank beginner can Google Carter and see for themselves that he is the laughing stock of serious scientific circles), deny it is happening (AGW that is) then when all else fails ask for scientific proof (the scientific principle works on Climate Science proffering a theory and the onus is on LL, IPA, Heartland to prove the hypothesis wrong)

Leo lane,

"Carter is paid for time-consuming professional work as co-editor of a Heartland publication that rivals the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment report..."

"Heartland makes an impact, not because of money, but because of the power of its ideas, the logic of its arguments and the intellects of the experts it attracts.”

Lol! to the Max!

Here's my favourite Heartland goof up...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#May_2012_billboard_campaign

"On May 4, 2012, the institute launched a digital billboard ad campaign in the Chicago area featuring a photo of Ted Kaczynski, (the "Unabomber" whose mail bombs killed three people and injured 23 others), and asking the question, “I still believe in global warming, do you?”.... Within 24 hours Heartland canceled the campaign, although its President refused to apologize for it. The advertising campaign led to the loss of substantial corporate funding, the resignation of Institute board members, and the resignation of almost the entire Heartland Washington D.C. office, taking the Institute's biggest project (on insurance) with it....."

"....the power of its ideas, the logic of its arguments and the intellects of the experts it attracts.”

Most impressive : )

The Wall Street Journal had appropriate comments on Obama’s insensitive and ignorant attitude at the G20
. “Obama made a speech to an Australian version of his political core audience back home—undergraduates at a metropolitan university” and went on
“But the longest passage was an extraordinary riff on climate change that contained astonishing criticism—implied, but unmistakable—of the government led by Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott. Mr. Obama lavished himself with praise for signing, a few days earlier, a climate-change agreement with China that imposes no obligations on Beijing until 2030, “
And…. “Mr. Abbott is a sensible conservative, along the lines of Canada’sStephen Harper . He accepts that climate change is a problem and that greenhouse-gas emissions should be reduced. He is skeptical of climate alarmism and does not believe that the solution lies in onerous carbon taxes or trading schemes in carbon permits, which are notoriously open to corruption and inherently ineffective.”
http://online.wsj.com/articles/greg-sheridan-a-mystifying-obama-climate-slap-at-a-u-s-ally-1416269694
Poirot has been foolish enough in the past to make predictions about Abbott which were one hundred per cent wrong
Our grubby little lefty James O’Neill has been rash enough to make a prediction in his backhanded way. He cannot do worse than Poirot, but will no doubt match her. He seems to have the same grasp of Abbott’s political mastery as she does

Leo Lane,

Getting funnier,

Wow! Murdodch's WSJ carries a piece by right wing Oz journo Greg Sheridan...Amazeballs!

"And…. “Mr. Abbott is a sensible conservative, along the lines of Canada’sStephen Harper . He accepts that climate change is a problem and that greenhouse-gas emissions should be reduced. He is skeptical of climate alarmism and does not believe that the solution lies in onerous carbon taxes or trading schemes in carbon permits, which are notoriously open to corruption and inherently ineffective.”

That would be the Stephen Harper who's decided to leave Abbott out in the cold by contributing to the Green Fund?

"The Abbott government has been left embarrassed on another climate front with key ally Canada indicating that it will support a United Nations climate fund to assist poor nations to cope with global warming."

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/red-faces-for-tony-abbott-on-green-climate-fund-20141117-11oca7.html#ixzz3JzpTV0YZ

But the prize goes to the phrase "Abbott’s political mastery"!

Last week "Abbott’s political mastery" was called into question by at least 3 right-wing cheer-leaders....Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt and the Australian Newspaper. All sorts of things were criticised, even the master choreographer, Credlin.

Bolt: "The Abbott Government must now change or die"
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/the_abbott_government_must_now_change_or_die/

Jones: "Failing the 'pub test': Alan Jones blasts Tony Abbott over government's free trade deal with China"

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/failing-the-pub-test-alan-jones-blasts-tony-abbott-over-governments-free-trade-deal-with-china-20141116-11o0cp.html

(Plus two critical pieces in The Australian - both now behind paywalls)

The poor old Abbott govt bandwagon appears to be dragging its tail shaft and shedding parts, jerking all over the road as it trundles uncertainly about the Oz political landscape....It's going to take all of Abbott's celebrated "political mastery" just to keep it on the road.

Leo Lane once again demonstrates his complete inability to address the issues and resorts, again, to mindless name calling. I am now, in his view, a "grubby little leftist". The leftist label I concede, although to be left of Leo requires only a millimetre of adjustment to the left of Attila the Hun. I am however, neither little nor grubby. I am frankly surprised that Graeme even allowed that post. Clearly, double standards apply.

It may dismay Leo, but the World Bank (another leftist organisation?) has just published its third report commissioned from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Climate Analytics. According to World Bank President Kim (certainly a "little" man) quoting from the report, "past emissions have set an unavoidable course to warming over the next two decades, which will affect the world's poorest and most vulnerable people the most."

The report, entitled "Turn Down the Heat" has much more to say and those genuinely interested in the effects of climate change (obviously excluding ideologues such as Leo) will read it with concern, World Bank Vice President Rachel Kyte notes that because of greenhouse emissions already released into the atmosphere, the die is already cast for the next twenty years. If we continue down the present path unchecked, the planet will become uninhabitable.

Among the solutions proposed by the World Bank are carbon pricing, shifting investment to clean public transport and clean energy, and more energy efficient factories, buildings and appliances.

I for one am not prepared to gamble my grandchildren's future on the say so of a bunch of scientific illiterates like Leo and his mates.

Yes, James O’Neill, our prime minister is not grubby or little, but you chose to use the description, so you can wear it. Should Graham have done something about your inappropriate language?

You have no science to justify your support of the Climate fraud, and pointing out that the World Bank support the fraud does not help your position.

. The effect of human emissions on climate is trivial, and not measurable, which is the reason that there is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. Yet the World Bank, against the science, disingenuously states an effect of human emissions, for which there is no scientific basis.

Support for the climate change fraud, since it has no scientific basis, can only be based on ignorance or dishonesty. Since you are ignorant enough to quote the World Bank, on science, you can claim ignorance.

You are a scientific illiterate, James.

Leo Lane you are on a losing wicket mate, you know nowt other than showing you have a closed mind!

Dear James O'Neill and Peter King,

Leo Lane and I go way back and I always find him good for a chuckle, perhaps a guilty pleasure. I would be greatly disappointed if he ever came to his senses as I think he and other science rejecters really do help to shine a light on the absurd messages from misinformers and mouth pieces like Bolt.

Dear Leo Lane,

You wrote;

“Mann is suing a climate scientist for a remark”

Lol. Pray tell who have you now elevated to climate scientist status?