The author is paid by the ACF to lie about climate. She lies when she refers to “pollution” by which she means carbon dioxide, a colourless, odourless trace gas, the presence of which, in the atmosphere, is essential to life on earth.
She makes reference to the “eminent” scientists who make up lies about the Great Barrier Reef, which after more than 50 years of predictions of disaster is still going strong, as are the liars about its condition.
It is fortunate that Trump was elected. He has stated what he thinks of the outcome of the Paris climate lie fest. We can only hope that the member for Goldman Sachs will have some sense, or be deposed by Tony Abbott.
There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
As Professor Robert Carter pointed out years ago:
“the hard reality is that after twenty years of intensive research effort, and great expenditure, no convincing empirical evidence exists that the human effect on climate (which is undeniable locally) adds up to a measurable global signal.
Rather, it seems that the human global signal is small and lies submerged deeply within the noise and variability of the natural climate system.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/4/a-new-policy-direction-for-climate-change
That remains the situation. The climate liars, like Suzanne, have no science to support their garbage.

Fist, I am not a member of any environmental organisation, I have yet to find one sufficiently balanced.

Second, I do believe that coal is on its way out, but this will be slow, 20 years plus. There is a way to go with technology to make renewables as secure as coal or gas.

Third, there is a lot of evidence that carbon dioxide is acting as a greenhouse gas and warming the planet. It is this warming that is affecting the Barrier Reef.

Fourth, a lot of countries are moving out of coal for air pollution reasons.

Fifth, for more mines we lose more farmland and lots of water and potentially much up water tables.

Six, if we got sensible, we could develop companies based on renewable and energy efficiency and sell services to the world, rather than have others sell these services to us, as happens much of the time

John Hine

JEH says:” , there is a lot of evidence that carbon dioxide is acting as a greenhouse gas and warming the planet. It is this warming that is affecting the Barrier Reef. “.He gives no basis for this nonsensical , fraud promoting assertion

As Professor Robert Carter observed:
"However, our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails."
Bob Carter http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ZUVPX02KD1UHZQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/08/nrclimate08.xml&page=2

Bleaching is part of the normal life cycle of the Reef:” the Great Barrier Reef system is over 18 million years old and has rebounded from various geological events like Ice Ages, low sea water levels, and warmer water over its enormous life span. In the current bleaching event, some corals will recover once ocean temperatures drop below 29.5 degrees Celsius and corals that have died can be recolonised by coral larvae during the next spawning event. In some cases recovered areas may be recolonised by hardier corals and be more robust for future events.”
Why do you believe the climate fraud promoters JEH?

I omitted the link to the comment on the Great Barrier Reef
http://www.greenislandresort.com.au/reefhealth/

Suzanne, Iron and coal account for $160 billion dollars in export income. Got that? $160 billion. The next closest is agricultural products, and that gets us a measly $10 billion. If you seriously want Australia to stop selling coal, thejn you hade better sell your Honda and get yourself a horse and cart, because that is where the Australian economy will be headed.

I find it incredible that the very people who want to spend, spend, spend, on social welfare programs despise the very means Australia uses to get the money to pay for them. What is it about you lefties that you hate the idea of anybody making the money that you want to spend?

Human Induced Climate Change is beginning to look like the biggest con job since the Millenium Bug, but what we are dealing with hee is a religious belief system. Somewhere down the track, the dregs of the middle class become born again pagans and started worshipping nature again. Since that time, they have used their influence in the universities and the media to spread the gospel that the world is coming to an end if the human race, specifically the white European race who invented everything, don't change their sinful ways and worship Gaia.

Thirty years from now when the Asians are the richest people in the world and the European multicultural nations are looking like Aleppo, or a scene from Blade Runner, you are going to look back at your present attitudes and wonder how it was that you could have been so stupid and naïve.

Actually, Lego, the global warming hoax predated the Millenium
Bug hoax: the global warming hoax replaced the global cooling hoax in the mid 1970s, when, interestingly, many of the former "coolers" became "warmers" - the same individuals. They could see where the next government grants would come from.

And, ironically, global cooling to a new ice age is far more likely than catastrophic global warming, which has never happened in the entire history of the earth. The so-called "anthropogenic" global warming, said to be caused entirely and completely by human emissions of carbon dioxide, is baseless: human-derived carbon dioxide total about 0.00004 per cent of atmospheric carbon dioxide by volume.