Well I think your all off your heads if your implying that I'm trading in fear porn any more than anyone else.

The CSIRO says 'Deserts 'Greening' from Rising CO2'
http://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2
Obviously then, CO2 is helping to prevent the planet become a desert.

- Then we have other claims that say greenhouse gasses reflect heating energy rather than absorb it, though I don't know how true that claim is because the source is considered questionable.
http://www.naturalnews.com/040448_solar_radiation_global_warming_debunked.html

Then we have this:
http://www.infowars.com/group-that-admitted-manufacturing-global-warming-threat-still-pushes-same-hoax/

And this:
http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/jun/06/portland-schools-ban-on-books-questioning-climate-change-national-coalition-against-censorship-ncac
- Which basically proves that kids are being indoctrinated rather than educated.
Obviously they aren't being taught to question things anymore.
Brainwashing...

But thats ok since what they want is for us not to have kids anymore.
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/479349760/should-we-be-having-kids-in-the-age-of-climate-change

Then you have people who want climate deniers charged and jailed.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/14/bill-nye-open-criminal-charges-jail-time-climate-c/

Who's crazy here exactly?

This whole thing is about carbox taxes and emissions trading schemes, which only ultimately takes more money from a/ consumers and b/ business, who will have less profits to reinvest into renewables.

So tell me how anyone wins from this except people like Al Gore and his ilk who hypocritically fly around in private jets burning up millions of litres of fuel, and live in palaces that use more power than all the members of the forum combined??

Why don't we go steal some third world tribes rainforests for some carbon credits?
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/10/the-forest-mafia-how-scammers-steal-millions-through-carbon-markets/280419/

Tell me we mostly all live by the coast; has anyone noticed the location of the sea change in their lifetimes?
I'm assuming its still there where we left it right?

This whole thing is not science, its propoganda and politics.
Mountains of money for scientists - if they tow the line.
Of course scientists will take the money..
They aren't any more reliable than politicians.. or used car salesmen when someone opens a briefcase full of money.

Then you get someone like this author who tries to set things right, and you all attack her, like you attack me.
Doesn't matter that one of our leading scientific organisations has zilch on the subject, but you all know better.

[cont]
Climate on earth is controlled by many many factors, some more powerful than others.
Do humans have an impact on the environment? Yes
Is it significant? Not really
Climate on earth is determined by 2 primary mechanisms:
The first is solar output - how much energy comes from the sun and it is not a constant.
There are multiple overlapping cycles of solar activity.
11 yr sunspot cycle, 22 year magnetic cycle and indications of longer 60 and 90 year cycles.
The second is the shape of the earths orbit which oscillates from circular to elliptical over roughly 100,000 year cycles.

Until scientists can control solar output or shift the earth in its orbit there isn't a thing anyone can do to change climate change...

Except of course to use the issue to extract money from gullible idiots.

JBowyer
If you view my previous posts you would see that many different references are provided, my view on climate change does not hang on the view of one Meteorologist.

It amuses me that scientists are viewed as only being interested in climate change for the monetary resources.

ExxonMobil have spent millions of dollars funding denier groups, the question is why would they do so?
They're own climate scientists believed that man has an impact on climate.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn_9uBIubzU

Climatologists would be lucky to earn in a year what an oil or coal baron earns in ONE DAY! Does money drive climate politics!? You bet!

@Armchair Critic cry me a river. :-)

Better to read the scientific literature or listen to those who know.

“It was one of those moments where science really surprised us. But the results were clear.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-25/climate-warming-%27started-about-180-years-ago%27/7773270

Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence...that 2C global warming could be dangerous.

"We conclude that the message our climate science delivers
to society, policymakers, and the public alike is this: we
have a global emergency. Fossil fuel CO2 emissions should
be reduced as rapidly as practical."

52 Pages - References 10 pages!
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3761/2016/acp-16-3761-2016.pdf

Read That versus the flippant uninformed online comments or the ideologically biased funded by special interests using your Tax Money to manipulate You!

Dr Marohasy said she was keen to get government support on their method of forecasting = Typical IPA Denier Hypocrisy
http://www.qt.com.au/news/weather-forecasting-system-developed/1398812/

Quoting Marohasy:
1. Belief in the truth of a theory is inversely proportional to the precision of the science.
2. The creativity of a scientist is directly proportional to how much [s]he knows, and inversely proportional to how much [s]he believes.

Ignoring 'the Science' by NOT reading it is driven by Ideological Beliefs!

Ideology is a collection of BELIEFS held by an individual, group or society.

An Ideology is political theory, economic theory or Religious THEOLOGY - all are Belief Systems.

Ideology is not Science!

Rule #1: Follow the Data where it takes you!

Marohasy has clearly forgotten this critical point for her version of "30 pieces of silver." People forget what really matters in life.

REF:
The Neo Sophists: Intellectual integrity in the Information Age'

Although CORPORATE [IPA self-]interests insist on a dominant role in determining not only instructional models, but also the course of university–based scientific research, they blatantly REFUSE to acknowledge the guiding PRINCIPLES of normal scientific inquiry, as defined by Thomas Kuhn (1970).

“Men whose research is based on shared paradigms are committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice. That commitment and the apparent CONSENSUS it produces are prerequisites for NORMAL SCIENCE, i.e., for the genesis and continuation of a particular research tradition.”

http://uncommonculture.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/881/790

Learn Something Read It

Armchair,
"- Then we have other claims that say greenhouse gasses reflect heating energy rather than absorb it, though I don't know how true that claim is because the source is considered questionable"
By absorbing and remitting infrared in random directions, greenhouse gases do effectively reflect heat. But far from debunking global warming, it's part of the basis of it. More infrared travelling through the atmosphere comes from the ground than directly from the sun because the ground emits infrared after it's heated by visible and UV light. So higher greenhouse gas levels mean more infrared is effectively reflected towards the ground.

Most climate change deniers don't even bother to understand the science before they ignorantly dismiss it. Is it any wonder there are people around who want them jailed?

BTW investment levels depend on how profitable the investments are, not how much profits they make from other things. Business isn't averse to borrowing for good investments. And in the mid to late 20th century, a breakdown of the link between sunspots and temperature was observed. And only by ignoring the evidence could you claim that the effects of human activity on climate is not significant.