And the award for the most tenuous, deceptive and silly article this year goes to Kate of the "Climate Institute".
For really thick readers the name is the clue for what it gets money. I will bet the bulk of their funds rock in from their mates in the Government.
Please tell me I am wrong?

What a pile of absolute nonsense. The shame is that the taxpayer is probably paying this dill to disseminate this garbage,

"Kate Mackenzie is The Climate Institute’s Investment and Governance Policy Manager"

The title shows the author believes in dangerous human caused climate change. Kate should read more broadly than the group-think she is participating in with the Climate Institute..

The climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years and will continue to do so. It changes abruptly - always has and always will - not as the models show. There are many causes (e.g. the location of the tectonic plates). Human caused GHG emissions are just one (it is debatable whether they are responsible for more or less than 50% of the recent warming (since about 1950).

The planet is currently in an ice age (i.e a period when it has ice at one (or both) of the poles). This is unusual - i.e., it has occurred only 25 % of the time since multi-cell animal life began about 600 million years ago. So,there is virtually not risk of dangerous or catastrophic warming. It's a massive beat up by those who make a living out of scaring the population by creating and inflaming irrational phobias.

The planet will not get out of the current ice age until North and South America separate again, allowing waters to circulate the planet in the low and middle latitudes.

The real issue regarding "dangerous" and "catastrophic" is the consequences of the planet warming or cooling. Cooling is definitely dangerous and would be deadly for possibly billions of people. However, it is debatable whether warming is doing and likely to continue to do more harm than good.

The nonsense people like Kate keep repeating is frustrating and damaging. It is slowing the rate human wellbeing is improving globally. Those who like to call themselves "Progressives" have been blocking progress for at least half a century.

Nothing that wasn't in the Insurance Council of Australia paper of 2008. http://www.insurancecouncil.com.au/issue-submissions/issues/climate-change-improving-community-resilience-to-extreme-weather-events
Localgovernment authorities in Queensland were banned from even acknowledging Climate risk by the LNP state government. Now reality is setting in.

At first glance this really dumbed down diatribe, seems like the wish list of realtors with a massive stockpile of unsold southern state real estate to foist off on the gullible?

Regardless of climate change, people will need to follow the water!

Unless southern Primary Production and their city cousins find a way to manage on far less. i.e., Change the Murray darling from a veritable fruit bowl to an oil drum, via algae based oil production.

And indeed suck carbon directly from the atmosphere, given algae absorb 2.5 times their bodyweight as atmospheric carbon, which literally doubles every 24 hours along with phenomenally boosted and maximised algae farming oil production, which would reduce irrigation demands down to just 1-2% of former traditional irrigation!

And even then allow most or all of it to rely exclusively on recycled (borrowed, cleaned and returned to the system) effluent?

And given pragmatism prevails, shift most of our water dependant primary production to the north where rainfall is measured in metres? And indeed, far enough inland to escape the worst of any climate change caused cyclones.

Around ninety million years ago, the world faced a similar climate change crisis, and according to the paleontological record, those few that survived were small colonies or enclaves saved in relatively protected small mountain valleys, caves and such?

And given boam homes located in inland valleys connected by storm, fire and flood proof underground transit systems and information highways emulate much of that? That's what I'd plan for along with a move that follows the rain! Rather than the apartment glut of southern state debt laden speculators.

Look at what killed the Celtic economic miracle and that of similarly affected and now basket case economy, Spain. And then measure those very outcomes against this spurious advice!
Alan B.

This is yet another attempt to get every man and his dog involved in climate change over reaction.

Banks lend money, their duty is to ensure that they get repaid, insurers insure property on risks today, not what might be in a few decades.

Kate, you are on a hiding to nothing on this site when it comes to climate change it's full of the willfully ignorant and down right dishonest.

@Peter Lang "The planet is currently in an ice age" Peter post of link to a single climate research organisation that believes that.

Most if not all would agree with this statement "The earth is currently in an interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago."

Oh and Peter a political think tank doesn't count as a climate research organisation nor is a blog.

Yes Cobber and bankers and insurers are at the very least, risk averse pragmatists, given to precautionary practises.

And who is going to invest good money in any area that's repeatedly ravaged by ever more intensive drought and attendant fire storms, which as seen in Canberra's suburbs, is a forerunner of what the future might hold for southern cities facing a very real prospect of desertification and burial under repeated sand storms? At least those still above the high tide mark.

If city planners won't bury their roads, rail, bridges and services, where they'll remain largely unaffected by future storms, which may get less frequent even as they could increase in average severity. It may well be that Bankers and Insurers won't finance or insure them?

And given those changes could also be latitudinal affect southern cities as was the case for the UK 90 million years ago, which saw it regularly ravaged by wind storms with winds that regularly exceeded 300 kilometre per hour, which according to the paleontological record left a salt laden desert that supported no life for the hundreds of years it took for plants and planet normal to return.

Our future will not be harmed if it includes plans for worst case scenarios, all while hoping for the best outcomes.

Those plans should include an inland shipping canal that doubles as a ever reliable and repeatedly self replenishing water source, to water underglass intensive agriculture (Bulletproof polycarbonate)- and future submersible shipping that sails under storm tossed seas rather than on them and at very real risk of being wrecked on any rocky shore or overturned by waves as high as three story houses?

Nor will underground systems need to be repaired or replaced every two more three years if they're laid out underground! And as such, last much longer, regardless of surface conditions?
Alan B.

On 1 June 2016 the Bureau of Meteorology Issued Special Climate Statement 56 - Australia’s warmest autumn on record. The report contained the mandatory photo of the drought stricken plains and went on and on about the high temperatures and lack of rain.

Then in the last 3 days Sydney has received more than twice the average mean rainfall for June.

Tim Flannery in the mid-2000s made a series of predictions that resulted in desalination plants being built in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide and the Gold Coast. Am I right in saying the total cost for the four plants was over $10 billion and all four plants are moth balled?

Cobber the Hound,

Clearly, you have no idea what you are talking about. You clearly don't even understand the difference between, thousands, millions and billions of years. What an eegyt.

Look at IPCC AR$ WG1 Chapter 6, Figure 6.1 to see what the climatariate thinks about paleoclimate through the Paleozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic Era's. https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-6-1.html

Notice where the ice ages occurred, ignoramus!

Gee Peter you got into name calling pretty quick.... rather pathetic...
Thanks for the link but I've read it before. I think you need to take bex and some of your own advice. The scale of the graph would not show the we are now considered to be out of a ice age.

As I said most if not all would agree that we are 11,000 years into a inter-glacial period called the Holocene https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene
For those of you following at home here is a broader explanation of the geological time system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale

Now Peter if I'm misunderstanding the information you have provide then please post a calm reply

@cobber the hound, please forgive @Peter Lang, he is obviously becoming very frustrated about repetitive arguments by Climate Change denialists. Arguments about this being some kind of normal cycle were exploded decades ago. Here is a whole barrage of refutations https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
For a more reasonable view, try this Wikipedia article on the "Anthropocene" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene It shows how the mills of sciences are grinding every so finely towards formalising the current consensus.
@Kate Mackenzie is simply pushing us to discuss the ramifications and suggesting that we may have to change.

Come on Kate, if you are going to preach from the ridiculous Global warming hymn book, at least get your religions facts right.

Your own theory tells us that the polls will warm faster & to a greater extent than any other part of the globe. Thus should this religious fervour come to pass, there will be a reduced temperature differential between the tropics & the polls.

Cyclones are part of the planets attempt to equalise global temperature, as is all weather. As your own religion tells us global warming will reduce the difference in temperature, it would reduce the potential for cyclones, & reduce the energy source for any that occurred.

This is fully recognised science, even by your mythical 97% of climate scientists. Real scientists such as physicists actually agree with this.

So love, if you really feel a need to push this scam, at least do it by the rules of your scam. This bulldust is just so puerile, even school teachers won't believe it, although a southern hound just might.

In the news this morning, was the plight of some comparatively well off near Sydney beach homeowners, whose beachside Mcmansions have been undermined by recent storm events and surges?

And may find themselves unable to recover their considerable losses as these dwellings are condemned for being made uninhabitable due to the actions of the sea, which is uninsurable?

Who said insurers weren't pragmatists welded to the precautionary principle?

Left up to Hasbeen, he'd blown billions insuring these muddleheaded moribund moguls and their seaside homes? Given he knows beyond any reasonable doubt that climate change is a lie along with the predicted changes, like ever increasing coastal inundation that comes with it?

Well, he is a FORMER FAILED businessman, isn't he?
Alan B.

Lee, Cobber, etc

The point that I was trying to raise is that trying to make the banks and insurers responsible for people borrowing money is like trying to make supermarkets responsible for peoples' life choices. It is patently ridiculous.

Another at the Public Teat sucking the health (wealth) from Workers.

Kate, something I have never understood is that coal and other fossil fuels were created over millions of years; yet, we use it in a few geological moments. We are meant to understand that the carbon created by use of fossil fuels is not going to have any impact on the atmosphere.

Since 1979 the amount of radiative forcing has been monitored, it has been worked out to be 2.974watts/square metre for 2015.
The Earth's area is 510 million square kilometres. So by multiplying 510,000,000 by 1,000 to obtain the number of square metres we derive 510,000,000,000 square metres. To obtain the number of watts involved we multiply 510,000,000,000 by 2.974 to get the number of watts created over equilibrium. The amount of energy created goes up on an annual basis by over 1%.

The table at the end of the article shows where the 2.974 came from.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

The 11 year ARM study conducted in the natural environment supports the view scientists have that CO2 and infrared radiation create energy in the atmosphere.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

Some explanations in relation to the mess the Arctic is in would be appropriate:

http://www.hakaimagazine.com/article-short/new-tipping-point-disappearing-arctic

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/06/07/weve-never-seen-anything-like-this-arctic-sea-ice-hit-a-stunning-new-low-in-may/?postshare=6721465327439837&tid=ss_tw

Please debunk the ARM study and NOAA reference with proper references.