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".