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.