//But are we? Nope. Our government hardly 'believes in' climate change, let alone taking any strong action.//

Our Parliament, last time I checked, had about 5 members - across both houses - who hold a scientific qualification. Most politicians are Arts/Law graduates, and don't know their quarks from their quasars. We can't really expect them to understand the science.

At the end of the day, it's our fault: we live in a representative democracy, so we get the politicians we vote for. If we collectively decide that we'd rather be ruled by a mob of lawyers than a group with a diverse range of different skills and knowledge, then we have to be prepared to live with the consequences of that decision.

When Max made a fool of himself last year, he departed the thread, he was unable to justify himself in any way, no science, no sense, just baseless ad hom against me. I had shown that he had no science and was a baseless fraud promoter, just as he is now.
He said “ I don't have the time to waste on yet another dime-a-dozen internet troll. I'm unsubscribing from this thread. Goodbye.
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 26 April 2015 2:20:46 PM”
Max the troll, having the gall to call me a troll because I showed that he has no science to justify his baseless assertions.
orum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17266&page=0#304963

Max, the troll, now says:” It's why I call conspiracy theorists tinfoil hatters.”
No, Max, it is your childish, dishonest reaction to the purveyors of the truth. You call them “conspiracy theorists” show your resentment and dishonesty. All you need do is reference science which shows that there is a measurable human influence on climate. You cannot do so, because there is no such science.
Your dishonesty is the only basis you have for support of the climate lie

A convenient summary of the climate fraud is given by Apollo Astronaut Walter Cunningham:

"If we go back to the warmist hypothesis - not a theory, but, a hypothesis - they've been saying from the very beginning that carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high, that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for humans, and they thought warmer temperatures are bad for our world, and they thought we were able to override natural forces to control the earth's temperature. So, as I've looked into those, that's the problem that I've found, because I didn't find any of those to be correct - and, they certainly were not a theory, it was just their guess at what they wanted to see in the data they were looking at."
."
"Don't believe it just because your professor said it. You gotta go take a look at it. Go back and look at the history of temperature and carbon dioxide, and you look at the value of carbon dioxide, and how it's a benefit today."

Astronaut Walter Cunningham in the Apollo era.
Cunningham notes that, while climate alarmists are concerned that the atmosphere currently contains 400 parts per million of CO2, that's only a tenth of the level his spacecraft had to reach before causing concern. In his Apollo craft, an alarm would go off when CO2 reached 4,000 parts per million and, in today's space shuttle, the trigger is 5,000. And, in submarines where crewmen may be on three-month missions, CO2 has to reach 8,000 parts per million before the alarm is activated.
"In one area after another, we find these people overly concerned about, one, the danger they're trying to push on us and, secondly, the claim that we can somehow or other control the earth's temperature by affecting it," Cunningham says.
"I can't say we don't have any impact, at all, but it'd be so miniscule and so tiny, that it wouldn't be worth any effort."
So, ....he calls climate alarmism "the biggest fraud in the field of science":
http://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-bannister/apollo-astronaut-climate-alarmism-biggest-fraud-field-science

Exxon Mobil pursues Schneiderman for his actions in bad faith, pursuing the company at the instigation of climate fraud supporters.
“ On the heels of last week’s federal court order subjecting Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and parties involved in the #ExxonKnew campaign to judicial scrutiny, yesterday ExxonMobil asked a federal court to join the Green 20 ringleader – New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman – as a defendant in the case and invalidate the subpoena he issued in 2015.
Explaining the basis for the discovery order, Bloomberg reported today that “The timing of Exxon’s filing [against Schneiderman] wasn’t happenstance. Last week, U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade in Fort Worth said in writing that he was concerned that Healey may have engaged in a ‘bad faith’ pursuit” of the company given her biased and prejudicial public rhetoric on the matter. As a result, Schneiderman, Healey, and other participants in the #ExxonKnew cabal will be compelled to produce internal emails and other documents and, potentially, sit for depositions.

In other words, the tables have turned, and the “investigators” themselves will now be investigated about what they knew, said and did in the run-up to launching their campaign.

Much like the successful filing against Healey, ExxonMobil’s motion to join Schneiderman in the case lays out compelling evidence that the New York AG was also acting (leading the coalition) in “bad faith,” and that he and Healey“joined together with each other as well as others known and unknown to conduct improper and politically motivated investigations of Exxon Mobil in a coordinated effort to silence and intimidate one side of the public policy debate on how to address climate change.”
https://energyindepth.org/national/schneiderman-on-the-defensive-as-exxonknew-campaign-begins-to-backfire-on-ags/

Hi Leo,
you're trying to distract the crowd with endless links to other topics. But we are still discussing the 97% issue, and your personal ignorance of OTHER studies that support this remains a live issue.

Because you haven't said anything intelligible or comprehensible (in English) about it, I'll put it up again.

Dude, there are many other studies into the 97% factor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#/media/File:Cook_et_al._(2016)_Studies_consensus.jpg

The 'source' you linked to on 97 studies against 97% was a who's who of anti-science gits like the Heartland institute. Try harder. With real, not imaginary, stuff.

Also, there is not one scientific academy on the planet that disagrees with the consensus view of Anthropogenic Global Warming. It seems every National Academy of Science agrees! So, are they all dunderheads that can't do science? Are they incapable of accessing data on CO2's radiative forcing as tested by a Fourier Device?

Let's see, what do all the National Academies of Science say?

"Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

That it's all a conspiracy is just plain ridiculous and childish, the domain of sad tinfoil hatters.

So while you foam at the mouth and change the topic, let's just agree that 97% of people actually qualified to comment on it agree that climate science is real, and that the 3% is made up of known cantankerous contrarians without any real counter-theory, and ... gee, let's see... a known creationist? Wow. Some scientific pedigree you keep there pal!

Max, the troll, says:” it's all a conspiracy is just plain ridiculous and childish, the domain of sad tinfoil hatters.”
Yes Max, it is another of your more ridiculous assertions. It is your assertion, not mine. I have never said anything about a conspiracy, it was,, I agree, a sad tinfoil hatter, being yourself.
So what does a fraud supporter and troll do when he has no valid response to a factual statement?
Standard fraud-backers procedure is to lie about theperson making the statement. There it is, Max’s lie:” was a who's who of anti-science gits like the Heartland institute.”It was a faithful reporting of the invalidity of Max’s material, which was the standard fraud backer’s lie about the mythical 97% of climate scientists.
There are petitions signed by scientists against the baseless misrepresentations of climatescience:
“, it has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Max repeats baseless lies because he is a fraud supporter and a troll. He has no science to support his assertions, so makes ridiculous untrue statements to divert from the topic, snd distract fro his complete lack of merit. In particular he can refer to no science which shows any measurable human effect on climate.