There is a long history of alarmism - alarms taken very seriously at the time that have not been borne out by events - but one of the features of this market is that successive generations never learn from past mistakes. Never mind all the past forecasts of mass starvation, taken so seriously at the time, have proved to be completely wrong, you will still find people convinced that a major food exporter like Australia is on the brink of starvation. Even senior academics a few years back were talking seriously about food security.

Some people it seems, have to have an apocalypse just around the corner - we never get to it, but it is always just around the corner..

oh dear another one..... nurse nurse he's out of his bed again!

The real problem is that our education system has been so dumbed down that truth never gets in the way of regressive dogmas. The global warming religion is clear evidence of that. Warmist largely love to take the high moral gorund usually because true morality (facing the truth) is ignored. That is why you have the getup crowds and the socialist left among the highest users of carbon. They fly around the world at other peoples expenses and are shameless about their hopelessly failed preditions. They make the Jehovah's witness look credible.

Oh Dear, all about the wrong argument again.
Go and read the Global Energy Systems paper at Upsalla University.
They surveyed all oil & coal reserves and found that the available
economic reserves were lower than the lowest IPCC projections.
It means that we will probably run out of fossil fuels before global
warming would have much effect.

I do not have the url now but the above info should enable google to find it.

Quote
"There is no generally agreed theory that explains global warming and climate change in existence today."

Yes there is by scientists, but obviously not by those who don't believe in science.

Dear Mr Hunter,

Please stop. There comes a point where flat-earth views of the kind you are spruiking are not even controversial any more, they are just sad.

That point is now.

Mr Hunter. How enormously satisfying you must find it to have the above posts, with the exception of Curmudgeon and Runner, so thoroughly evidencing the premise of your essay. Do I laugh or cry?
There are times one needs to decide whether it is to leeward or to windward one relieves oneself.

Warmair,

What bothers me is that the most ardent supporters of the "climate science" have no background in science at all, and treat the matter as completely settled as though the IPCC descended from the mountains with clay tablets upon which are written incontrovertible truth. Any one that challenges this dogma either with regards the results or solutions is branded a heretic or "denier", ostracized and denied funding.

Those with a science background would know that within any scientific field there is always wide divergence, and that for chaotic systems such as the climate, whilst there is a "most probable" interpretation within a band of error, the science is never settled, and needs to be constantly re evaluated.

Those promoting a strict dogma wrt climate change are not assisted by doomsday predicting by the most radical of their number, nor by their failure to acknowledge their fallibility even when the results over the past 18 years deviate wildly from their earlier predictions.

Murray Hunter writes in "The danger of climate change evangelism":

"... the reality is that there may actually not be more than a couple of hundred people in the world who really understand the science of climate change, and are experienced and qualified enough to make a valid scientific opinion. ...".

That is probably an underestimate, and there could be several thousand people who understand the climate change. But whatever the numbers, as Professor Hunter writes, the consensus of those who know is that global warming is real and is caused by burning fossil fuel. The scientists can't be certain how fast this is happening (science is never certain), but it is certain enough to take prudent steps to avoid disaster.

We have visitors from an alternate reality again. The delusional Steele Redux, who disbelieves all facts about climate fraud-backing, and tomw, who cannot read plain English, so that he asserts that the author was stating a truth when he was pointing out a misrepresentation.
Here is what Murray Hunter said, for anyone misled by tomw,
“The public are continually told that the vast majority of the world's "scientists" are in general agreement about man-made global warming being the cause of climate change, and the potential damage it will do to the earth. However, the reality is that there may actually not be more than a couple of hundred people in the world who really understand the science of climate change, and are experienced and qualified enough to make a valid scientific opinion”
Accompanied by the ever senseless, and incoherent baying of the hound.

This excellent piece by Murray Hunter does not mention the climate fraud initially promoted by the climate fraud promoterl James Hansen, who gave his initial address to launch the fraud on a day selected because it was predicted to be the warmest and in a room where the air conditioning had been deliberately turned off, the night before.
A columnist, Gordon Fulks holds a doctorate in Physics and “the conspiracy theory that AGW is a hoax or at the least a political vehicle is borne out in Fulks’ opinion pieces, and that the ‘consensus’ is challenged by hundreds of scientists- which includes himself.”
https://denierlist.wordpress.com/category/scientists/
The assertion that human emissions will cause dangerous global warming has no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
Despite warmair's dishonest assertion about the science, he has no link to any science demonstrating any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.

Murray Hunter,
I cant be bothered to find references, but they are easily found with a little research. Some points of interest:
1. Basic science of CO2s impact on global temperature fully known and understood in the 1800s. Not a typo, but well over 100 yrs ago
2. A Swede Nobel laureate determined that doubling Atmospheric CO2 would cause 4C or so rise in global temperature, about 1900.
4. Nearly all the energy we use arises from the creation of CO2 + some hydro and nuclear. Your body's energy comes from internal generation of CO2.
5. With billions of people wanting to become as energy profligate as us, can you explain why the additional CO2 will have no impact.
6. Well determined in 1800s, if there were no CO2 in the atmosphere, earths average temp would be about -15C.
7. That set of left wing conspirators in the US military have lead thr US military to project that climate change impacts will and are causing massive dislocations of populations. Their estimate - 200 to 600 million climate refugees.
8. The US military assess the impact of climate induced population movements represent a threat to social order worse than all current terrorism activities.

Enjoy your fantasy life.
Cheers