The global warming scam crowd must be getting desperate. They are screaming in the media up here, that Gold Coast homes COULD be underwater in a few hindered years with the rapidly accelerating ocean rising from global warming. Please note the Weasel word COULD.

Not to worry, we'll still have Pinchgut or Fort Denison as it's officially known to defend us against invasion. With the second oldest tide gauge in Oz, & one of the longest records in the world it is showing just 0.6mm a year, or 60mm a century. Yes that's right that is almost two & a half inches by 2116. I hope all those Gold coasters are suitably scared, & vote lots of money to academics to waste on horror stories.

The conclusion sums up what a valuable contribution this book is to the climate change debacle:
“ Brady suggests that the path forward requires a complete restructuring of the IPCC (perhaps abolition would be better). He hopes one day the edifice of global warming, built over the past 40 years and fuelled by greenhouse gases, will collapse”
The purpose of the IPCC is to examine the human effect on climate. Since there is no measurable effect, there is no reason for the fraud promoting IPCC to exist.

Thanks to Cliff Ollier for a most pertinent article.
The flea, the hound and Rhosty dissent from its assertions, so it is undoubtedly correct, as none of them have never been right, on any aspect of this topic.

Leo

In 1912 they were already discussing the impact of coal emissions.

http://www.braidwoodtimes.com.au/story/3848574/old-news-goes-viral/

Leo, you state:

"The flea, the hound and Rhosty dissent from its assertions, so it is undoubtedly correct, as none of them have never been right, on any aspect of this topic."

The problem you have Leo, is that you do not provide any proof in relation to what you assert.
Abuse is one of the main strategies you use; the use of abuse is a red flag indicating a lack of evidence.

One of your quotes from elsewhere:

"Is there no way to shut these criminals up, or at least get the press to stop parroting their lies?"

From:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18111&page=16

https://climatecrocks.com/2016/04/16/the-weekend-wonk-eric-rignot-at-agu

Try debunking Eric Rignot; Leo , a multi qualified scientist, a renown expert on the cryosphere.

The flea states:” problem you have Leo, is that you do not provide any proof in relation to what you assert.”
No, flea, that is the problem you have. You have been requested scores of times to supply a reference to science which shows any measurable human effect on climate, to support your assertion of human caused climate change. I supply sources for science which is relevant. You never supply relevant science.
You even use the misleadingly named Skeptical Science as a fererence, a site run by an unqualified dropout cartoonist, John Cook.

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/sss-myth-creator-john-cook.html

The flea’s false and insolent assertion that I do not refer to science to back my assertions, reminds us that he is a liar and has never referred to any science to back his support of the assertion of human caused climate change.

There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, is there, flea?

Leo

No reference to science?
The 11 year ARM study displayed the relationship between CO2 and IR in the natural environment.
What you call no science, Leo.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2968987/Scientists-witness-carbon-dioxide-trapping-heat-air.html

Last sentences:

"Nor could it be temperature data being tampered with, as some contrarians insist, Feldman said.
'The data say what the data say,' Feldman said.
'They are very clear that the rising carbon dioxide is actually contributing to an increased greenhouse effect at those sites.'
The study is good technical work, said climate scientist Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University, but it is expected — sort of like confirming gravity with a falling rock."

Another example of your non-science research, Leo.

http://westcoastoah.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/OAH-Panel-Key-Findings-Recommendations-and-Actions-4.4.16-FINAL.pdf

But, the climate is changing, regardless of what you suggest , Leo; whether it is by man created activities or otherwise, we need to adapt and mitigate.

An example of damage done by recent unexpected weather conditions:

https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/fantala-strongest-cyclone-on-record-for-indian-ocean-massive-flash-fl

Costs accrued? One example of numerous of such events over the last decades.

What do you suggest we do in relation to the changing climate (man made or otherwise), just let vulnerable areas get impacted regardless of cost?
Or, develop strategies to deal with climate change as well as we can?

You have a comprehension problem, don’t you. flea?
I said you have no relevant science. Look up the word “relevant”, and you will comprehend the conversation.
Amongst all the irrelevant garbage you have posted, there is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
This makes you wrong in your support of the assertion of human caused global warming, and irrelevant in any science you have posted, through your unqualified incompetence.If you have any evidence of a qualification, or competence, you should let us know.