The biggest threat to gw is truth and facts. No wonder some professors don't even know a human with a penis is a boy.

Thank you Misia for your article.
As a 20+ year old I used to go skiing every weekend possible, I gave up when the slopes had less reliable snow and took up wind surfing instead. That's almost 40 years ago.
I have read about climate change for a number of years and the predictions made are now coming about. There had been talk of storm surges for example which we now experience.
As a youngster flash flooding on a weekly or more basis, was not experienced somewhere on the planet, as it is now.

Palaeo-climatology has come a long way since the 1970s, we now understand that greenhouse gases have had a huge impact on climate in the past.

Many science disciplines dovetail into the science of climate change.

Dear Dr Mesisa Temler,

Please don't be overly concerned about our resident deniers, theirs is not disbelief brought on by analysing the science rather they are so invested in the politics that any idea of shifting their stance gives the poor dears the vapours.

They can be likened to a typical bunch of barflies, always far down the end of the bar, a little too old, a little too thick and a little too ornery to be moved.

I have just returned from a meeting on water flows and the farmers there, some fourth generation, were acutely aware of the impact of climate change. Their aren't many sceptics down our way among those who live on the land.

It is important also to remember that we shouldn't be measuring just how hot or dry one year is compared to the past especially if it is happening far more frequently than in the past.

'Climate has always changed. When we eventually, inevitably return to full glacial conditions again, we will really have something genuine to worry about."

....not if we don't burn all the fossil fuel. Reserving it now and going nuclear leaves it ready to burn when we need to heat the planet by raising CO2 concentration later.

Beneficial warming? Asian monsoon crops failing so Siberians can grow grapes will not be beneficial. The human dislocation and warring alone will put the "C" into CAGW.

Misia said:

“I think all of us fail to imagine our environment permanently changing, otherwise we would not gamble with climate change.”

This statement is founded on the hypothesis that carbon dioxide emissions resulting from man’s activities, chiefly from burning fossil fuels, has a significant warming influence on climate. In fact the IPCC claim it has become the principle cause. They provide no empirical evidence however to support this extraordinarily claim, only circumstantial evidence and deficient, tweaked and unverified computer models.

The facts are, if there is any warming at all from this insignificant addition of 4.3% to the overwhelmingly predominant natural emissions, it is too small to measure.

If you bothered to check the science and observations for yourself, you would find that this is the case and that the naive acceptance by many of the general public and the media is a result of the deliberate selective use of the facts, manipulation of temperature and other data, denigration and denial of anyone with an alternative viewpoint, etc., all designed to support their pre-determined agenda. That is not science.

Nor is science about consensus, as other contributors to this site have correctly pointed out. It is about continually observing and checking the veracity of the current state of knowledge and changing your opinion when the evidence and facts change.

The facts about ‘climate change’ are clear, the current hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming are demonstrably incorrect, on numerous readily demonstrated counts. The vested interests pushing it however are very powerful and simply deny anything that conflicts with their assumptions. That is not science.

Until an independent public inquiry, looking at all the facts, science and evidence is established, much time, energy and scarce financial and other resources and opportunity will continue to be lost.

Gambling with the truth about ‘climate change’ is done at inordinate cost.

Dr Misia,

You say: "I think all of us fail to imagine our environment permanently changing, otherwise we would not gamble with climate change. "

This shows you start with a believe and a bias. You accept those who align with your ideological beliefs. You do not challenge your beliefs as a good scientist would. You just accept the world of some authorities, and ignore the others. That is like pre-enlightenment times when the priest were believed over observational evidence.

There is so much wrong with what you believe, it's impossible to know where to start educating you. But clearly, your mind is closed anyway.

Why don't you at least consider the points I made in my first comment (second comment on this thread).