sorry Susie I should of used the word gullible instead of religous. The gw alarmist are more religous than most.

btw: how are the dam levels in Brisbane and Sydney. Oh that's right the 'scientist'are not allowed to be held accountable or even questioned. No wonder the alarmist support in the last survey was under 50% in Australia and dropping. Keep up the good fight of faith Susie as you are badly needed otherwise the funds might dry up even know the dams have not.

runner,

Brisbane dam levels are shown at http://www.seqwater.com.au/water-supply/dam-levels and those for Sydney are at http://www.waternsw.com.au/supply/dam-levels/greater-sydneys-dam-levels

Of course scientists must be questioned and held accountable. But they can't be held accountable for claims they did not make, no matter how much they're falsely accused of making them.

runner

A very strange religion that has physics and chemistry as its base with a number of other science disciplines supporting the view of anthropogenic climate change.
Climate change has a history of almost 2 centuries; whereas, denial has only come to the fore in the last decades. The irony is that in the last decades the knowledge in relation to climate change has increased.

Deniers often argue that the science is a hoax; it does not make sense when scientists come from many countries and peak bodies such as the Royal Society, CSIRO, NOAA, and NASA et al, they all agree with the science.
Do you know more than a Glaciologist, Astro Physicist, Marine Scientist, Atmospheric Scientist etc etc? Where is the hard evidence that debunks these various disciplines?

A scientist would gain the status of an Einstein if they were able to show that climate science is wrong.

I'm an increasingly cynical climate activist. There's actually a lot I agree with in this article! I won't believe we are serious about climate change until we're prepared to listen to some of the Eco-Modernists (like James Hansen's friend Tom Blees) who recommends we put Integral Fast Reactors up on the production line. (They don't use water as a coolant, avoiding the single cast high-pressure cooker cores and containment domes that are so difficult to mass produce and so expensive).

If we listen to Dr Hansen on our climate problem, why not the solution? He says the world should build 115 reactors a year which, on a nuke per GDP rate, is slower than the historical French build out rate. And the French just *nationalised* electricity when the oil crisis hit. They just did it, and pumped out 56 reactors over 15 years.

The world "just" needs to nationalise energy, and pump out 115 reactors a year.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change

Until I see that happening, I've basically given up.

Ant, if it only was as simple as that.
There was a study of some hundreds of AGW papers conclusions and it
was nowhere near the 98% agreement that we have heard promoted.
From memory is 55% believed AGW as true as displayed and something
like 25% were indeterminate and the rest were not convinced.
If you google for the paper I am sure you will find it.

Anyway as for myself, I don't care either way as it does not matter.

'A very strange religion that has physics and chemistry as its base with a number of other science disciplines supporting the view of anthropogenic climate change. '

don't flatter yourself. You obviously have no idea of the difference between junk science and real science. You give science a very bad name.