Should be a good novel, Lyn. Your obsession with climate change and the causes of it has given you a good grounding in fiction.

You obviously forgot quickly Lyn that people voted in the despised Abbott because he promised to abolish the breathing tax. Now they have voted in Hanson. The scaring tactics of the Barrier reef has been around for over 60 years. Only the dumbed down getup crowd and other self interested partied keep pushing such nonsense.

You write ' The media needs to change its predominantly negative approach. It must communicate the facts;'

which facts have you produced Lyn except for the tired dumbed down gw narrative which keeps refusing to perform for its high priests.

Here is an essay and website which supports Lyn's essay: it is about a unique chimpanzee who puts our usual human vanities to shame.
http://thetruezoo.earth/2016/05/12/the-radical-chimp

Lyn go back to your airy fairy psychology.

This stuff is far too deep for you to understand.

It is sad that Lyn is able to report the success of the climate fraud in the support for the baseless “human-caused climate change”
Of course, she has no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
The human contribution of CO2 is 3%, compared to 97% from natural sources, so the human effect is trivial, and not measurable.
Lyn delights in the extent to which the public have been misled by promoters of the climate fraud, of "human caused warming".

The author is a psychologist who obviously believes that if you repeat alarmist global warming ideology often enough, more people will believe you.

Instead of relying on the soft science of psychology, why does she not wake up to the fact that there is no ‘hard science’ research to substantiate the ideology that anthropogenic greenhouse gases cause dangerous global warming

What would you know about facts runner.
Its all about "faith" and fairy stories for you isnt it.

Unfortunately the author exhibits some cognitive dissonance of her own. One of her few rays of light is the stat about 15% of Australian roofs bearing solar panels. Yet left out is how this generates less than 2% of Australia's electricity. That sort of thing is not going to shift emissions trajectories where they need to be, as recently published research indicates:
http://blogs.agu.org/geospace/2016/06/27/capping-warming-2-degrees-new-study-details-pathways-beyond-paris/

We need every tool in the low carbon energy box, not just renewables.

Yes, Duck, you have referred us to a fairy tale as baseless as the climate fraud.
Absent is any reference to science to show any measurable human effect on climate, just an off-topic, pointless diversion, true to your customary form.

I want to congratulate Lyn for writing a considered piece on this important issue and to congratulate the editor for recognising it as such.

Regarding the barriers that make us resist the reality of climate change, I would refer her and interested readers to the following.

“Naomi Klein’s title Climate Change: This Changes Everything makes it very clear why this issue really has to be treated urgently as a first order priority. She gives a compelling account of the forces responsible for our massive and escalating greenhouse emissions and the dominant destructive neo-liberal philosophy behind it. But she also gives a compelling and inspiring account of the forces that are resisting – principally the mobilization of people power in small communities all around the world to put pressure on governments and corporations to seriously tackle the problem…….

"Sally Weitrobe reminds us that real change will only happen when people realize that this issue is not really about climate change but about people change…. I believe Weintrobe’s subtle and penetrating analysis of our psychological responses to the dominant culture goes to the heart of what blocks care and moral action across the board and I would encourage readers to read some of her fascinating articles (http://www.sallyweintrobe.com/the-new-imagination-a-tale-of-two-carrots/) and listen to her most recent talk “Climate Change and the Culture of Uncare” https://m.mixcloud.com/Resonance/frontier-psychoanalyst-ep-3-18-january-2016/ - See extended discussion at: http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/its-up-to-all-of-us/#sthash.ePvmr7Sk.dpuf”

Scott McInnes, how can you describe the article as a “considered piece”, when the author has obviously ignored the science. There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate. Not surprising from someone like you,who regards Klein as a relevant reference.
This is typical of the nonsense of the science ignorant Klein” , “We are stuck because the actions that could give us the best chance of averting catastrophe… are extremely threatening to an elite minority that has a stranglehold over our economy, our political process, and most of our major media outlets.”
“[W]e have not done the things that are necessary to lower emissions because those things fundamentally conflict with deregulated capitalism.” [P. 18]
To effectively and equitably deal with the climate crisis, Klein calls for increased levels of renewable electricity, supported by “vast new electricity grids.” [P. 90]”
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/05/04/klei-m04.html
The woman is an ignorant ratbag.

Scott McInnes, perhaps describing Klein as an ignorant ratbag was less informative than a scientist’s more edifying description of her:
“Bad manners always say more about the speaker than the target. Klein deceives herself with her name-calling “denier”. She can’t name anything scientific that the so-called deniers deny. Instead she fell for the Richard Muller blatant fakery, where he pretended to be a skeptic, then was so conveniently converted. She’s the one denying that he was always a fan of the IPCC, and always thought CO2 was pollution.
The myth that Big-Oil drives the skeptics is manna for the confused, who can’t fathom why so many people don’t pander to the same messianic saviours that they do. Klein obediently totes out the “$900 billion” the top five oil corporates make in profits, but completely ignores the $10 Trillion market in carbon credits that a global trade could have produced. Again, the numbers are just too complex for her — Exxon and friends might lose 5 or 10% of their bottom line to the monster carbon market, but the carbon market fans lose 100% of their profits if the big scare is exposed as a fake. There’s ten times the money pushing for a carbon market, and Klein blindly acts as a sock puppet for the big financiers.
The scientists speaking at Heartlands Climate Conference were so far ahead of Klein, they might as well have been speaking Urdu.”
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/11/naomi-kleins-crippling-problem-with-numbers/

Lyn has not only made assertions about climate with no basis in science, but refers us to baseless lies, like the following from a briefing from the unknown, unscientific, untruthful “Climate and Health” who apparently sourced its lies from the notorious “Lancet”
“Climate change poses serious health risks to Australians. More frequent and more severe extreme weather events, including heatwaves, floods, fires and storms will increase illness, injury and death. Other effects include an increased incidence of infectious diseases, vector borne diseases, air pollution, mental illness, poor water quality and food insecurity.4 Children, the elderly, Indigenous Australians, people with chronic illnesses,
There are 13 comments of which 10 point out the invalidity of her assertions.
Of the three which support her, one relies on a fairy tale about a chimpanzee which is completely irrelevant, one makes a baseless attack on another comment, and the third shows his ignorance by his reference to the hopeless Naomi Klein as a justification for Lyn’s baseless, unscientific nonsense.

Hi Lyn,
Excellent article.
Unfortunately, climate change posts on this site generally rubbish everything to do with climate change.

I have attempted to cross swords with many authors of such nonsence over the past couple of years. In general, they pay no heed to science, science facts or reasoned argument. In my view, hey are purveyors of nonsense.

Leo Lane is perhaps the most regular of such commentators. I would recommend paying no attention to his prattle. And, there are others as you might have noticed above who deserve similar treatment.

Recommended response is laughter, and some sadness for those people For I think they do not know what they are doing.

Cheers
Tony

Why must recognizing the problem be cojoined with carbon pricing and renewables?

They are not the way to go about substantively solving the problem. To that end, the article is really only aimed at the Leo Lanes, who are in the minority but make loud noises.

What is lacking is leadership that looks the issue squarely in the face and, putting all political obstacles aside, educates the public on the options and encourages open debate, followed by a plebiscite.

Then, if we decide to be lemmings and choose renewables, we will have at least gone through a process that makes everyone responsible for our doom, and not just a small cabal of ideologues that currently determine policy.

Tony153 says:” generally rubbish everything to do with climate change. “
No, Tony, just baseless assertions that it is human caused.
Tony is a regular contributor, notable for his lack of science to base his pathetic assertions.
He has no science to show that I am other than correct when I point out that there is no science to show that humans have any measurable effect on climate, so he recommends that the truth be ignored.
There is no need to ignore Tony, as he has nothing of substance to say. He has no science or logic to support his nonsense.

Lucifercrase cannot count, and does not read my posts, or he would know that he is incorrect when he says:" the Leo Lanes, who are in the minority but make loud noises.”.
Of the 13 posts here, when I commented, three were for the article, and ten against. Lucifer thinks I am in the minority. No wonder he supports the climate fraud.My posts which he has failed to read , of course, are quiet and truthful.

Leo, I stopped reading your posts about two years ago when I realized they were all the same post.

Did something change that I missed?

Tink.

Hi Lyn
I share your "obsession" with climate change. I'm sorry to see so many denialist comments on your article. I have to wonder, are they actually bots, or are they people paid by the promoters of climate disinformation?

“I stopped reading your posts about two years ago when I realized they were all the same post. “An idiotic comment even for a fraud promoter like Lucercrase.
On this thread I said, above:” There are 13 comments of which 10 point out the invalidity of her assertions.
Of the three which support her, one relies on a fairy tale about a chimpanzee which is completely irrelevant, one makes a baseless attack on another comment, and the third shows his ignorance by his reference to the hopeless Naomi Klein as a justification for Lyn’s baseless, unscientific nonsense.”
Lucercrase thinks that is the same as I posted two years ago. The only way my posts are the same is that they each show the invalidity of the climate fraud and are scientifically correct, so at least crase has noticed that.
He signed his last post “Tink”, wich no doubt replicates the tiny clatter of his disjointed mind

Greener Grarss says: “ so many denialist comments on your article”
There are no “denialist” comments, Grass.There is no science to “deny”.
There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate. If you are able to refer us to any such science then please do so. Otherwise, please desist from your scurrilous, baseless comments.

Leo, with what level of precision and confidence do we have to be able to measure something before you consider it to be "measurable"?

Do you have any relevant questions, Aiden?
The human effect on climate is not measurable because it is trivial. If it is not measurable, it is not scientifically recognised,, other than invalidly by fraud promoters.
Any more pointless questions, Aiden?

Leo, there is no evidence that the human effect on climate is trivial.
But there is overwhelming evidence that the human effect on climate is far from trivial:

We know that CO2 is a grednhouse gas.
We know that human activity has raised the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 30%.
We know about the positive feedback mechanism of a warmer atmosphere holding more water vapour (a more potent greenhouse gas), amplifying the warming effect of other greenhouse gases.
And we know that there is significant global warming, with last year being the warmest year on record.

So human activity is having the expected effect, and there's no credible alternative explanation for this effect.

So my pointless questions are:
Why do you ignore the facts?
Why do you accuse everyone who doesn't ignore the facts of being a fraud promoter?

Aiden, here are some facts and science set out by a scientist that you appear to have ignored:
“Robert Carter, a specialist in paleo-environmental and paleo-climatic topics and author of the book, “Climate: the Counter Consensus,” shows how this hypothesis of dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) fails. Below are some excerpts from a long post titled “Global Warming: Anthropogenic or Not?” See full post here.
Many different lines of evidence can be used to test the Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis (DAGW). Here are five pieces of evidence, all of which are based upon real world empirical data.
1. Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%.
Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. Hypothesis fails.
2. During the 20th century, a global warming of between 0.4̊C and 0.7̊C occurred, at a maximum rate, in the early decades of the century, of about 1.7̊C/century. In comparison, our best regional climate records show that over the last 10,000 years natural climate cycling has resulted in temperature highs up to at least 1̊C warmer than today, at rates of warming up to 2.5̊C/century.
In other words, both the rate and magnitude of 20th century warming falls well within the envelope of natural climate change. Hypothesis fails, twice.
(continued)

(continued)
3. If global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, then changes in carbon dioxide should precede parallel changes in temperature.
In fact, the opposite relationship applies at all time scales. Temperature change precedes carbon dioxide change by about 5 months during the annual seasonal cycle, and by about 700-1000 years during ice age climatic cycling. Hypothesis fails.
4. The IPCC’s computer general circulation models, which factor in the effect of increasing carbon dioxide, project that global warming should be occurring at a rate of +2.0̊C/century.
In fact, no warming at all has occurred in either the atmosphere or the ocean for more than the last decade. The models are clearly faulty, and allocate too great a warming effect for the extra carbon dioxide (technically, they are said to overestimate the climate sensitivity). Hypothesis fails.
5. The same computer models predict that a fingerprint of greenhouse-gas-induced warming will be the creation of an atmospheric hot spot at heights of 8-10 km in equatorial regions, and enhanced warming also near both poles.
Given that we already know that the models are faulty, it shouldn’t surprise us to discover that direct measurements by both weather balloon radiosondes and satellite sensors show the absence of surface warming in Antarctica, and a complete absence of the predicted low latitude atmospheric hot spot. Hypothesis fails, twice.
The null hypothesis – because it is the simplest consistent with the known facts – is that global climate changes are presumed to be natural, unless and until specific evidence is forthcoming for human causation.
So far, no evidence has been presented to disprove the null hypothesis.”
https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/failure-of-the-anthropogenic-global-warming-hypothesis/

The science has not changed in regard to human effect on climate, since Carter wrote this.
Why do you ignore the science, Aiden?

I dont ignore the science, Leo. But you do. Take another look at your claims:

1. "Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming;"

That claim is now COMPLETELY FALSE.

In 2013, when the blog post you copied it from was written, it was technically true but ONLY BECAUSE IT USED CHERRY PICKED DATA. On a longer timescale the trend is clear, but over a short timescale the trend isn't always discernible because El Niño years show up warmer than the rest.

This reliance on cherry picked data also completely invalidates point 4.

Now, before we go any further, can you see the difference between "the science" and a blogger who uses cherry picked data to reach his conclusions?

Do you agree that anyone basing their conclusions on cherry picked data is an extremely poor quality source?

(I'll address the other 3 points when you've answered that question).