Thomas, you stated this is the first time you have come to Online Opinion.

Leo Lane likes to continually say that climate science is fraud; says he's a retired lawyer. He occasionally does provide references but follow those references and they are extremely wanting. Leo's message is like a stuck record, he repeats the same message over and over and has been doing so for years.

Every week there are references to science papers on climate change in various peer reviewed journals, the number of papers by science skeptics is extremely low, around a handful per year (Powell et al).
Fossil fue companies fund denier groups such as Heartlands, Cato Institute, ALEC et al.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/index.php

ExxonMobil is not the only major fossil fuel company to be involved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn_9uBIubzU

You do not need a thermometer to understand that the the planet is warming:

http://www.climatecentral.org/news/ice-free-northwest-passage-20624?utm_content=bufferee6bc&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The question is whether man has had an impact or not; regardless, contingency plans are required.
All the evidence is in that man has had an impact. The science of climate change began in 1820s through Fourier; he has a theorem naming him in recognition of the work done.
Climate change denial has a recent history.

The isotopes of CO2 differentiate the source of CO2, volcanoes ruled out.
The ARM study of 11 years shows the forcing between radiated infrared and CO2.
Satellites have been measuring the forcing since 1979.

Here we go again, with Bazz getting all dismissive about climate change with a few trite accusations. But as The Guardian said when these groundless mudslinging accusations came out a few years ago:-

"Another site at Rutherglen had data adjusted to account for two intervals – 1966 and 1974 – when its thought the site was moved from close to buildings to low-flat ground.

Marohasy wants heads to roll [rolls eyes] because she claims that the Rutherglen site was never moved and so there was no need to homogenise the data.

However, the bureau has documentary evidence showing that sometime before the 1970s the weather station was not in the place where it is now.

The bureau had initially spotted a break or jump in the data that pointed to a likely move at Rutherglen."
goo.gl/ihHPbc

Wow, Thomas you really treat this like a religion.
Your a climate jihadist... Stick that one in you're report.
- Which is pretty much why I choose not to believe in it.

Regards the 52page research documents and images you linked...
I'm not wasting my weekend reading that, and since Australia's coastline is 36,000klms and you managed to photograph a few storms, geez, all I can say is you're a one man army.

Last time I looked it was still in the same place as it was when I was born 40 something years ago.

And as for your snarky comments I was busy on Saturday and the site was down yesterday...
So don't get your panties all up in a bunch.

And Sorry mate, but I listen to Monckton (when I can be bothered paying attention) and he says all your climate models are wrong.

And going back to my original comment about depopulation (and since you love TED talks so much) Bill Gates says quote "One of these numbers of going to have to get near to zero" - with the 'P' for 'People' in the background highlighted.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQtRI7A064

There is no way that can be misconstrued to fit in with yours or Max's first reponses to my comment.
...So you can get back on your horse an cart buddy.
Thats how much I think about your crap comments and your TED talks.

Also none of you have had anything to say about the fact CO2 is greening the planet...

Max Green Australian media have a long and sordid history of making things up. Google "Two Wongs don't make a white" and see how many times the media have brought that old chestnut up.
If the BOM did what the Grauniad says it did then it should stand by it. Of course if they took legal action they would be open to having to produce facts and figures in court.
So why do you think they would not want to do this? I think because they do not want to give evidence they say they are relying on.

Let me spell it out for you.
So long as this argument is about Carbon Taxes and ETS rather than sensible measures to move us in the right direction I'll oppose it.
30,000 climate scientists time would be better put to use planting trees, so all the climate scientists amount to is a waste of oxygen and making the problem worse.
So long as you lot treat it as a religion I'll opt out as I would with any nutty belief system.

They aren't helping things, farms and factories if you want to have the money to fix the problem and power out of it...
Climate scientists are just another impediment to fixing the problem.
Good for nothings...

And tell me do we have national tree planting days, does McDonlalds, KFC, Hungry Jacks or Red Rooster do anything to stop cars waiting 45mins for a meal? Does the government only purchase 4cyl cars for government to lower costs emissions? It won't even buy from companies it subsidises.

No, So don't try and put it all on me because I won't go along with the scam the fleeces consumers to redistribute wealth into the hands of the rich, because I don't run the show.
If it were up to me I'd support nuclear and thorium and a 50yr transition to renewables whilst giving the country the cheapest energy we could get.

As for all your long speils, get over yourself...
Whatever you need to tell yourself to get to sleep at night hey...

"And Sorry mate, but I listen to Monckton (when I can be bothered paying attention) and he says all your climate models are wrong."

Well, if you're going to *quality* scientific sources like Monckton, then I guess we're all exposed and we'll all just have to admit defeat. I mean, it's not like *any* of his accusations have ever been peer-reviewed by people who actually know what they're talking about? His foundation came out with the cure for MS, didn't you know?

Nudge nudge, wink wink, say no more.

http://www.desmogblog.com/christopher-monckton

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_arg.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley#Climate_change