This shows that our electoral system is stuffed. Our economy, environment and society are disintegrating because we are run by inner-city greens of all political persuasions. Bring back the 'gerrymander' so that doers have a say instead of whingeing climate crazies!

What a load of rubbish.

Nothing Australia's 25 million people do to use renewable energy will have any significant effect on warming while, in Asia alone, there are 470 new coal burning generators being built right now.

If coal is the real cause of global warming ( and the real science is not settled for anyone who is not a follower of the new green religion),
then we have to stop mining and exporting our coal.

Anything else is pure hypocrisy.

The article is nothing but propaganda. As Goebbels said, the bigger the lie, the easier it is to sell it to people. There's nothing in this article that deserves a detailed response but, if the voters in Wentworth really do believe that climate change is their most important issue and they vote the independent in, it'll be a case of people getting the government (or in this case the MP) they deserve. If the Libs lose the seat, it'll be a pretty good indication that Shorten will be our next PM and you can expect to see higher energy prices, stronger unions and more union militancy, hugely increased jobs for the (union) boys and weaker borders. Maybe we need 3 years of this type of emotional, opinion-based policy implementation to force the electorate to understand just how badly off we are in Australia with both major political parties.

From the article, "In fact, according to ReachTEL polling commissioned by GetUp, 87.4% of Liberal voters in Wentworth voters would be more likely to vote for a candidate with a credible plan to tackle climate change."

Therein lies the rub. Nobody in Australia has such a plan that is legal and doesn't cost an absolute monza with technology at hand.

Legalize nuclear electricity generation. Get South Koreans to build us plants using their consistent unitary design approach, and/or, buy SMR's soon coming to a store near you.

News Flash: The LNP mass suicide.

*…Former Liberal leader John Hewson has called on voters in his former electorate to use the election as a referendum on climate change and to vote against the Liberals…*

With friends like these, who needs enemies. Every day, a new traitor emerges attacking their old cash cow friend, the liberal party. They soon forget! Disgraceful behaviour.

And if a voice can be given to the losers “proper”, in this war between the ideologues, I'll restate the problem again;

Half the community pay ridiculously small power bills, compliments of the tax payer subsidised loans for home based power generation, while the unwashed other, go on to pay ridiculously high power bills, based on their inability to benefit from such schemes.

Wentworth by-election, is a ripe opportunity to observe the great divide between the haves and have nots; them, handed a golden opportunity to widen the gap more by forcing the ideology of nonsense like climate change,(which will cost them SFA personally), and other ideological absurdity and pride of place, gay rights, the consequences to education alone, through safe schools brainwashing of the unwashed children, pushed onto public schools.

The LNP is failing abysmally, as they walk blindfolded through their unintelligible world. It lacks real people to educate it to the plight of Mr and Mrs Everyman.
Jumping obediently to every tune of the gay rights radicals at the ABC, Morrison couldn't bend over far enough to satisfy them, swinging the bat hard for the Labor Party, and saving mythical gay kids from school expulsion.

Cont.

Cont.,

Meanwhile, over in the Nationals camp, the thought police dressed up in riot gear, and went in swinging to identify another ABC mock-up mythical non event, and expelled any rising right wing stars from the ranks of youth. Mysteriously though, leaving the gay rights campaigners untouched.

Hewson may be right and he may be wrong, but if he thinks he has a God-given right to rat on the Liberal Party that actually served him so well in the past, he is deluded. Obviously what his actions demonstrate to us out here, is the criteria required for political leadership: Total distrust and disloyalty. Yep, we get it!

Neneh is right. pre-polls do suggest the climate change is in the fore front of concerns in Wentworth. It is almost funny to suggest that the greens push climate change as a religion .. if that is the case then the religion formed more than a century before any green parties formed. Fourier in the 1820s created a starting point for the science of climate change, later Eunice Foote and John Tyndall were involved with experimentation with CO2 in the 1850s.

Those who deny the science provide many opinions, but, those opinions are not backed by any science. Fossil fuels take multiple millions of years to be created; we expel that sequestered carbon/CO2 into the atmosphere in a few moments when considering geological time.

The latest IPCC Report on 1.5C increase in temperature used 6,000 pieces of research reviewed by 91 climate scientists. The sheer volume of research being created is beyond the capacity of anybody to keep up with. Powell et al have suggested that there are something like 12,000 research articles published in peer reviewed journals on a yearly basis.
Periodically I have provided mega Science Reports comprising hundreds of pages and referenced by hundreds of referenced by hundreds of references. There has only ever been facile commentary provided by deniers.

There are no mega Reports that deniers can provide, that is the challenge I once again request.

An example:

https://science2017.globalchange.go

I can't help falling in love with U http://tinyurl.com/y92xcnpk

Diver Dan

Climate change is definitely happening ... landlocked glaciers are melting, grounding lines for glaciers/icesheets in Antartica and Greenland are moving in the wrong direction, where communities have relied on water resources from glaciers water shortages have happened.
Permafrost is thawing, shown by ponds being created and higher vegetation forming. These matters are related to temperature increasing.

Marine waters are warming displayed by water bombs being a constant source of record flooding. That is temperature related.

The costs created already are in the vicinity of a billion dollars or more for individual storms. When I was a young adult 50 years ago there was talk of the potential impacts of climate change, we are witnessing those impacts.
The huge Insurance Company Munich Re provides much information in relation to the costs of extreme events.

We have used coal exports to replace the manufacturing sector we used to have! And down to some of the most asinine short-term thinking and cowardly craven policies ever created by cringing spittle licks who've handed control, to either foreign-based coal barons or a union movement that now only represents 15% of the workforce?

These alleged leaders have been too busy shoring up their own political prospects to actually see what they were creating, be it Howard wasting mining booms one and two, which instead of giving it away, should have used both to build a massive sovereign wealth fund that would ensure our continuing prosperity into an uncertain future.

Time to get serious on climate change and carbon-free nuclear energy, and use that and the 2 cents per KwH it'd give the market. To resuscitate and rebuild our abandoned manufacturing sector. Wentworth could help this outcome by placing a member of the opposition in that seat? That in effect would force an earlier general election than the government and the coal lobby they would seem to be serving? Want?

And replace them with a government reliant on the independent cross benches or a parliament of independents not wedded to the coal industry. And the only way to remove that industries vice-like grip on the testicles of our ultra compliant pollies?

What we earn from exporting rock could be completely replaced by the export of CARBON FREE electrical energy to Asia via undersea cables and very high voltage transmission. And forever from power, we'd get for virtually free if we had leaders able to use the brains they were born with for the country before all else!

Read my earlier comments on nuclear energy.
Alan B.

ant.

Is this the link you intended, as your suggest link is a non worker?

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/

diver -
You appear to be saying you think Hewson should put party before country - or possibly even before planet!

The Libs were not cash cows for Hewson - he'd have made far more if he'd stayed in his job as a merchant banker rather than going into politics. With the benefit of hindsight, I think most people will agree he should have.

Not that the above should have made any difference at all. Keeping quiet for financial gain (or even financial gratitude) is a sign of corruption. You may be sufficiently morally deficient to admire it, but I'm glad that Hewson used his "God-given right to rat on the Liberal Party" (aka free speech).

Of course there's nothing new about former Liberal Party leaders attacking their old party. Fraser has a track record of it, and more recently Tony Abbott didn't even wait till he was out of parliament before doing so.

If you're so concerned about the gap between the haves and have nots, why aren't you advocating concessional loans for rooftop solar?

As for the Nats, I'm glad they purged themselves of neo nazis. Kudos to the ABC for exposing the problem.

The money we currently earn exporting iron ore and coking coal could be more than replaced by exporting the world's cheapest steel made using the world's least expensive energy! Especially if it was all that was on offer? from a conflicted, foreign-owned or controlled, tax avoiding, profit repatriating, price taking, mining industry

Moreover, the lowest costing steel with the lowest carbon footprint!

We could do this now or very soon, all that's is missing is the political will! That's all nothing else! Only mugs of the first water export the finest grade ore and coal then buy it back as twice transported steel, and from a country with around 30% annual wages inflation?

Waring factions and warring political parties are unequipped for the task of running the country, especially when they can't even run themselves.

What I've described above is very possible, given we have the workforce, the technological expertise, the coal and iron ore and all the money we need in a 2.5 trillion dollar super fund, OURS!

So, with all the real bases actually covered, to reiterate, all that is missing to actually address climate change, even as we rebuild our manufacturing sector and manufactured exports/future prosperity. Is AWOL political will, that's all, nothing else.

Something to think about the next time you go to vote or register to vote! Just make sure you put, I'm all right Jack, down at the bottom of the ballot paper!
Alan B.

Amazing the denying luddites are out from under their rocks today.

Hi Neneh,
Well I for one couldn't give a toss about climate change, and I still think the best application of climate scientists is to throw them into a active volcano to appease the climate gods.

I question the validity of your Getup! commissioned survey.
I'm calling bs, I don't believe you can take a random sample of 10 people in any electorate and on average 9 of them say Climate Change was their biggest concern.

- My final point -

Can I please have your mailing address?
I'd like to start sending you my power bills.
Since you're responsible for the constant increase in service delivery then I think you should start paying everyone's power bills.

How about apologising to people who couldn't afford to run a heater during this winter, and the elderly who will die over summer from not being able to afford air conditioner or cooler?

I don't care if you think you're doing what's right.
I hold you responsible for the loss of jobs of families struggling to put food on the table with young kids; damage to the economy; and an inability to move more easily to renewables when you shut the nation down; discomfort of the elderly in their final years.

What you actually cause in your bs parade is so unethical and so damaging to our nation that they're aren't words to describe it.

If you think human caused climate change is an issue, then do us all a favour and go kill yourself and do something constructive to deal with the issue instead of your scaremongering and blame game.

I love coal more than I like you.
Coal allowed me to have a life free from living like a neanderthal in the stone age.

All I give a crap about is how this nation is going to LOWER the cost of energy to stay competitive in global trade.
Until you have that solution, don't bother us with your fearmongering rot.

Diver

http://science2017.globalchange.go

Armchair Critic

Your very much over the top with your comments.
Without climate change, coal dust and emissions from fossil fuels kill a significant number of people each year. Consider that for awhile without getting abusive.

Your abuse turns people off in relation to understanding why you hold the opinion you do. But, you do not have any science to back up your opinion.

Unless:
What references can you provide?

if people of Wentworth are dumb enough to vote in favour of the gw fraudsters they deserve what they get. Most of the Turnbullites are living far from reality. You can be sure they will enjoy their Bondi Beach lattes no matter what electricity costs are. Of course it will be the pensioners in western sydney and the regions who will have to go without heating in the winter and cooling in the summer to satisfy to egos of the swamp. Electricity prices have already doubled in the last few years thanks largely to massive subsidies for 'renewables'. John Hewson has been a beneficiary of the gw scam for a long time. As for Greenpeace I won't waste my breath or words!

Voters also have an opportunity to do the opposite demonstrate their contempt for the climate scaremongers who are responsible for the dearest electricity in the world.

The “IPCC report this week showing that coal will need to be completely phased out by mid-century… “ is rubbish unless we go nuclear, and there is no indication that that will happen. It is NOT “Australia's responsibility” to go without coal and ruin our economy when big polluters like China and India build more coal power stations. Nothing we do would make a scrap of difference to climate change. Nothing any country does would make a scrap of difference to climate change.

The IPPC is made up of fraudsters.

'The IPPC is made up of fraudsters.'

come on ttbn, the abc would not back fraudsters would they?

The only action resulting from the billions of dollars spent on closing coal-fired power stations and converting to part-time renewables is higher electricity prices , that in turn have forced business closures, loss of thousands of jobs, and impoverishment of thousands of people -- and wait for it -- no measurable impact on climate.

Bureaucratic groupthink driving so-called climate action is undoubtedly the con of the millenium. The politicians allowing this qualify as traitors.

meanwhile record coal exports to India and China. How daft can a country be.

Posted this before no one has answered it yet.

What is the explanation for the dozens of predictions by so called experts and scientists of doom that have failed to materialize?

Neneh. " That means we are in pole position to help bring about the kind of transformation the IPCC is calling for."

When the Greenies sit down with somebody with some technical expertise and come up with some practical solutions to providing the world with cheap energy we may start listening to you. For renewables such as wind and solar to work, we need a vast amount of storage. Please sit down and do some sums on all this and you will find that the cost would be enormous. No cheap electricity there. Sooner rather than later you must realise that nuclear power is the only solution to the problem. The french have shown that it is both safe and reliable, so stop being a bunch of illiterate, misinformed scaremongers and get on with it.

David

We, the captive energy market pay around 24 cents per KwH for coal-fired power. And that price is killing off our industries, forced our car manufacturers offshore and farmers up against the wall.

What we need is nuclear power and at 2 cents per Kwh MSR thorium. which can be mass produced and sited almost anywhere to produce walk away safe reliable dispatchable CARBON FREE power, and for as little as 2 cents per KwH.

Currently, energy is costing many manufacturing enterprises more than their wages or tax bill and it is making irrigated farming that relies on electrically powered pumps unviable!

There's all this rubbish spouted by political advocates about lowering our tax when what we've always needed, was energy that costs as little as 2 cents per KwH.

And given we can do it very safely and even as we retire aging coal-fired power plants. and with carbon free energy.

This mob and those that sit across the Isle are the real problem and roadblock, given they have to have some serious investments in coal to be so recalcitrant and asinine? If there's another rational explanation for their preference, it escapes me. I'd make them eat their damned coal if only to understand, you can't!
Alan B.

What is the explanation for the dozens of predictions by so called experts and scientists of doom that have failed to materialize?
Philip S,
There is no explanation to the phenomenon of simple-minded academics & indoctrination by these insipid.

individual

Heat waves killing thousands upon thousands of people earlier this century, is that a catastrophe?
On a weekly basis there are parts of the world where rain bombs inundate communities killing people; destroying homes, cars and infrastructure. Or, people are lost through mud slides, catastrophe?
Or, hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones ripping apart areas; New Orleans is still recovering; catastrophe?
Farmers committing suicide as their farms are hit by drought, catastrophe?

In the past, if you had read the science, you would understand that what we are experiencing now had been forecast to happen many decades into the future.

There are media outlets that provide an extremely poor coverage of anything to do with climate change.

Please provide references to the contrary.

Electricity prices have gone up through privatisation of energy sources.

ant

To fully understand the hostility on this subject, you need to imagine a blank page with a big black line drawn down the middle, from top to bottom.
On the left side (say), are all the technical arguments for and against climate change; on the right side of the line are the social consequences of reactions to the former.
The hostility comes from the right hand side of the page: Those ignored by those who inflict the pain.

Charlie Veron is a very credible source of information on the subject of ocean stress from climate change. I believe him. Especially since I've spent a great proportion of my life under it, in it, on it and generally absorbed by it. I see the picture and it is not a good one.

But I argue, outside climate change as a problem, is man made destruction of the environment. Pollution is the worst offender. Huge volumes of sewer are dumped daily into it. I noticed Gladys Berejiklian praising her Governments efforts for cleaning up Sydney stormwater outlets yesterday; what she failed to mention, were the thirty outlets dumping Sydney sewer into the harbour.
Overfishing, illegal fishing. Government subsidised fishing. Chinese shark fin soup swallowing a hundred million sharks PA, Government subsidised sewer outlets up and down the coast.
All of the above is a pre-catastrophe.

People's view on climate change, depends on the individual focus.

Heat waves killing thousands upon thousands of people earlier this century, is that a catastrophe
ant,
I suppose from a human point of view it is. From an animal or natural point of view it's simply part of the evolutionary cycle. SFA humans can do about it unless of course they're willing to curb their excesses & consumerism. Until they do they should just shut up & deal with reality.

ant quote "In the past, if you had read the science, you would understand that what we are experiencing now had been forecast to happen many decades into the future." Sorry to disappoint you but they have been happening for decades in the past as well.
If an event has been occurring regularly in the past it does not take a genius to predict it will happen in the future.

Quote "On a weekly basis there are parts of the world where rain bombs inundate communities killing people; destroying homes, cars and infrastructure. Or, people are lost through mud slides, catastrophe?"
When idiots clear the hillsides above there houses for firewood etc you get a mudslide that is not climate change that is an idiot with an axe or chainsaw.

ant try answering this one, "What is the explanation for the dozens of predictions by so called experts and scientists of doom that have failed to materialize?"

a much more serious problem than climate events is that ant and others truly believe such nonsense.

A much more serious problem than climate events so far is that despite all the evidence, runner and others truly believe they're nonsense. And because of inaction resulting from that, the climate problems are going to get a lot worse

Aidan, I see you can't even answer one questions.

Philip S

You ask: "What is the explanation for the dozens of predictions by so called experts and scientists of doom that have failed to materialize?"

Give references to examples where that has happened. You need to show your premise has some foundation before it can be answered, that can only be done by providing examples.

Dear Philip S,

I'm going to second ant on this one. You are the one claiming; "What is the explanation for the dozens of predictions by so called experts and scientists of doom that have failed to materialize?" without even giving a single example.

Hansen's predictions from 1988 are quite remarkable given his original paper did not have the benefit of the advances in data and computer modelling. Actual figures continue to come in between scenarios B and C.

Really impressive work.

Stump up old chap or put a sock in it.

Philip S,
Nobody can give a single answer for every wrong prediction. However I can give you some possible explanations, starting with the likeliest:

• THE PREDICTIONS WERE NEVER ACTUALLY MADE
(Such as when someone on this board falsely accused Tim Flannery of predicting it would never rain again in Sydney)

• THE PREDICTIONS WERE PART OF A RANGE
(The top figure in the range caught the media's attention, but what the scientists were actually saying is there was only a 5% chance of exceeding that figure)

• THE SCIENTISTS PREDICTED A MUCH LONGER TIMESCALE
(For example, sea level rises of tens of metres were predicted in the early 1990s and it caught the public's imagination, but when the scientists said that would take centuries to occur, media attention had moved on)

• THE PREDICTIONS WERE ACTUALLY WRONG
While this possibility is far less likely than the others, it is important to note that our planet's atmosphere is a very complex system. Our understanding and modelling of it, though constantly improving, is far from perfect. Data is limited, assumptions can be wrong, and particularly in the early days the capability of computers was sometimes a limiting factor. Though great steps are taken to avoid it, human error is still possible. Plus there are variables like volcanic eruptions that could not be predicted.

If you can be more specific in what prediction you're referring to, I could probably find the explanation of why it didn't eventuate. Better yet, I expect you could do so yourself.

Aidan
The U.N.’s top climate scientist said in 2007 we only had four years to save the world

Rajendra Pachauri, the former head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in 2007 that if “there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.”

Environmentalists warned in 2002 the world had a decade to go green

Environmentalist write George Monbiot wrote in the UK Guardian that within “as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world’s animals or it continues to feed the world’s people. It cannot do both.”

In the late 1980s the U.N. was already claiming the world had only a decade to solve global warming or face the consequences.

On June 30, 1989 a “senior environmental official at the United Nations, Noel Brown, says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”

Prince Charles’s warning we only had 96 months to save the planet

It’s only been about 70 months since Charles said in July 2009 that there would be “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.”

This is probably where Charles got it.
In 2009, world leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark to potentially hash out another climate treaty. That same year, the head of Canada’s Green Party wrote that there was only “hours” left to stop global warming.

“We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it,” Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote in 2009. “Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday.”

Vice President Al Gore, predicted in 2006 as he was hyping in his BS (but nevertheless Oscar-winning) documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” that unless we took “drastic measures” to reduce “greenhouse gases,” then the world would reach a “point of no return” within a decade.

Con't
The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe. However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate refugee,” by 2010, population levels for those regions were actually still soaring.

Here so much for scientific research to get data.
In its final 2007 report, the UN IPCC suggested that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 or sooner. It turns out the wild assertion was lifted from World Wildlife Fund propaganda literature. The IPCC recanted the claim after initially defending it.

Like the UN, the Pentagon commissioned a report on “climate change” that also offered some highly alarming visions of the future under “global warming.” The 2003 document, entitled “An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security,” was widely cited by global-warming theorists, bureaucrats, and the establishment press as evidence that humanity was facing certain doom. It also served as the foundation for the claim that alleged man-made “climate change” was actually a “national security concern.” However, fortunately for the taxpayers forced to pay for the study, the Pentagon report turned out to be just as ridiculous as the UN “climate refugees” forecasts.

For well over a decade now, climate alarmists have been claiming that snow would soon become a thing of the past. In March 2000, for example, “senior research scientist” David Viner, working at the time for the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, told the U.K. Independent that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain.

After the outlandish predictions of snowless winters failed to materialize, the CRU dramatically changed its tune on snowfall. All across Britain, in fact, global-warming alarmists rushed to blame the record cold and heavy snow experienced in recent years on — you guessed it! — global warming. Less snow: global warming. More snow: global warming.

Philip S,
I notice that all but one of the people in the first response you posted WERE NOT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS!
So you're at fault for accusing climate scientists of making claims that they didn't make.

The headlines exaggerated Viner's claims - see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/steve-connor-dont-believe-the-hype-over-climate-headlines-2180195.html

There is no accepted definition of climate refugees; nobody keeps statistics on them, and refugees are generally so unpopular that nobody would want to be counted as one if they could help it. So although the UNEP predictions were wrong (with inaccurate data and overreliance on extrapolation) the claim there's not a sngle one is very dubious. Also it's likely that the consequences of climate change were a big factor in causing the Darfur conflict.

I'll probably be too busy to continue this before the weekend, which should give you some time to thing about it more.

runner
You stated: "a much more serious problem than climate events is that ant and others truly believe such nonsense."

Yes, I believe in science ... Physics, Chemistry, Atmospheric Science, Oceanography, Glaciology etc etc. I actually believe that extra warmth in an area covered by snow and ice causes melting!
See comments below.

What I'm not seeing is any references from those who claim otherwise in relation to climate science.

Phillip S

In relation to the Arctic Ocean sea ice; since satellites began being used to measure sea ice extent and volume in 1979 there has been a major decline of 75% plus in those measures. In that time the multi year sea ice that holds the sea ice together has been declining. There are fluctuations from year to year in these measures through the weather patterns experienced and whether narrow passages such as the Fran Straight are blocked. Something that has been noticed is that refreeze is happening later in the season over the last few years.

Taking the above factors into account, and the current measures for sea ice volume and extent, it is not silly to suggest that in a 10 year plus/minus period that for a period there will be an ice free Arctic Ocean. Extra ordinary weather patterns as experienced in 2012 could make it happen even sooner. The state of the Arctic Ocean as it is now was not expected until many decades into the future. We know there is warmth in the Arctic Region on the basis of permafrost thawing. It takes warmth over an extended period before permafrost begins to thaw.

But then, objective factors (natural factors able to be identified) such as loss of snow and ice, raining instead of snowing, and permafrost thaw are virtually a natural thermometer.

Phillip S "In its final 2007 report, the UN IPCC suggested that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035 or sooner. It turns out the wild assertion was lifted from World Wildlife Fund propaganda literature. The IPCC recanted the claim after initially defending it."

I have a friend who has just come back from areas in the Himalayas with a photo of one particular glacier where the guide said the level had dropped by about 50 feet in the last 30 years. Seems to me that the 2007 report might be close to the truth.

David

It is interesting to see how quickly the discussion can be diverted. The thread does not talk about climate change but the fact that the government-of-the-day seems to not want to talk about it. This puts it at odds with an increasingly literate and knowledgeable electorate, particularly in the electorate of Wentworth.

This electorate's wish, it seems, is for the government to state a position and delineate the actions it intends to take to assuage electors' fears.

For the record, I don't believe in climate change, just as I don't deny the existence of climate change. I read as much of the research as I can, and on that basis, I accept the existence of climate change. I see climate change as being brought about by the fact that carbon-bearing fossil fuels are being burnt and are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere at a rate far in excess, perhaps a million times more , than atmospheric processes can remove it.

Aidan
I was going to thank you for your competant reply Wednesday, 17 October 2018 but at the time I had posted 4 comments and could not reply.

Then you wrote on Thursday, 18 October 2018 quote from you "So you're at fault for accusing climate scientists of making claims that they didn't make."

It is now obvious you read with a bias towards what you want. Here is what I wrote "predictions by so called experts and scientists of doom that have failed to materialize?" NOTICE the words climate scientists does not appear except in your bias.

Quote "I notice that all but one of the people in the first response you posted WERE NOT CLIMATE SCIENTISTS!"

Prince Charles and the others where do you think they get the information from, expert advisors and scientists.

Are you implying only climate scientists are to be believed and no one else is to be believed?

For your information all of the so called climate scientists are not climate scientists some are environmental scientists and scientists in other fields.

Quote "There is no accepted definition of climate refugees;" That is a stupid answer to this prediction "The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe."
Only a fool would need a definition to notice 50 million people fleeing where they live because on rising water levels. IT did not happen, just admit it.

While we are on the subject of definitions
Maurice Strong founding director of UNEP wrote the IPCC terms of reference the first term of reference being the definition for climate change, he limited it deliberately to only human causes of climate change, he also manipulated the report by making other groups accept the findings of other groups.
Maurice strong education is a junior high school dropout (put in by David Rockerfeller)

** Notice that it was limited NOT to look at natural causes like volcanoes or anything else **

Con't
Aidan
Are these the people you want me to believe?

Climatologists Found Guilty of Hiding Data
Will escape criminal conviction on technicalities
http://www.corbettreport.com/articles20100129_crimatologists_guilty.htm

Fact the leader was a liar.
Rajendra Pachauri, who chaired the IPCC for 13 years.
Prior to his being elected IPCC chairman, an Indian High Court had already concluded that he’d “suppressed material facts” and “sworn to false affidavits.” Contrary to longstanding claims, Pachauri earned only one PhD rather than two.

Phillip S

Your reference does not work.
Though, when looking at the date of your reference 29/01/2010, it is quite old and is a blog site. Much has been happening on the climate front since 2010. It is very interesting that 1998 is no longer used as a kind of datum by deniers.
Often when the IPCC Reports are used by deniers, they do not use the current IPCC Report which refers to the latest science. IPCC Reports rely on the science from thousands of scientists.

In the news constantly is the number of rain bombs falling around Earth. A rain bomb is where a month's average amount of rain falls in a very short period. Apart from normal transpiration, a warm water body and atmosphere are requirements to provide water vapour. An increase in greenhouse gases produce a warm atmosphere, allowing for more water vapour to be taken up.

Ant, we are akin to casting pearls before swine. we should use our time with more productive pursuits.

David

Ant LINK INSTRUCTIONS,

http://www.corbettreport.com/articles20100129_crimatologists_guilty.htm

Go to page.

Right side box SEARCH put in episode 282

It will be the top result

just click on it

you can listen or go down page to "Crimatologists Found Guilty of Hiding Data" in blue just click on it, it shows the emails etc.

Ant Go here and watch it check the links as above for the proof then tell me if you still don't believe it.
http://d.tube/#!/v/corbettreport/1ix8rx9c

'Ant, we are akin to casting pearls before swine' as part of the swamp David I doubt you have any pearls to cast. Those entrusted with pearls are honest not like the gw scammers and fraudsters.

If we do not reverse global warming by the year 2000, “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels”, warned Noel Brown, a director of the United Nations Environment Programme, in 1989.

Adelaide, Sydney and Brisbane would "need desalinated water urgently, possibly in as little as 18 months."

"the water problem for Adelaide is so severe that it may run out of water by early 2009."

FIVE years ago, Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery predicted that the nation's dams would never be full again and major Australian cities would need desalination plants to cater for our water needs. Yesterday, in his latest report, he said "climate change cannot be ruled out" as a factor in recent flooding rains, which led to some of those dams overflowing.

The aim of the Australasian Antarctic Expedition, led by Chris Turney of the University of NSW, was to prove the East Antarctic ice sheet is melting. Its website spoke alarmingly of “an increasing body of evidence” showing “melting and collapse from ocean warming”. Instead, rescue ships and a helicopter, all belching substantial carbon emissions, have had to be mobilized to pluck those aboard the icebreaker MV Akademik Schokalskiy from their plight, stuck in what appears to be, ironically, record amounts of ice for this time of year.

Prominent green activist, Clive Hamilton, for instance, has suggested that the ‘suspension of democratic processes' might be a necessary ‘emergency' response to the threat of climate change.

Sydney Morning Herald columnist Elizabeth Farrelly recently wrote that ‘Australia's ludicrous dithering on a pollution tax' was evidence that voting should be a ‘privilege' rather than a right and that China should be envied because it need not ‘pander' to voters.

In 1975, author Lowell Ponte wrote the book "The Coming Ice Age." Quote "Global cooling represents the most important social, economic, and adaptive challange we have had to deal with in 110,000 years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of the utmost importance. The survival of ourselves, our children, and our species."

Lego

As with quoting old science research, keeping up with current observations provides a far more accurate assessment of what is going on.

What is your opinion in relation to 1998 which has been used as a datum point by deniers?

In the 1970s it was possible to have a walking/sleding expedition to travel across sea ice in the Arctic Ocean to reach the North Pole, why is that not possible now?

Last Northern Hemisphere winter a ship built with the capacity to travel through sea ice about 2 meters thick was able to make a passage, that would not have been possible in the past. Prior to that a yacht had been able to sail both passages of the fabled North West passage in a single season, not able to be done before hand.

In the 1970s the science produced by/ or for fossil fuel corporations, indicated that they were stating that global warming would happen. There were some scientists who wrote about an ice age, but they were in a minority. I was in my 20s at the time when climate change was written about, an impending ice age was hardly discussed. Had normal cyclic climatic events have occurred we should have been on our way towards an ice age. What went wrong, Lego?

How do your comments fit in with what is happening with the Totten Glacier? Check which part of Antarctica it sits!

Fossil Fuel Corporations:

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/shell-grappled-with-climate-change-20-years-ago-documents-show/

Totten Glacier:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-20/more-of-antarcticas-totten-glacier-found-to-be-floating/9567922

https://phys.org/news/2018-03-sea-giant-antarctic-glacier-thought.html

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/01112017/east-antarctica-totten-glacier-melting-winds-warm-ocean-sea-level-rise-study

In relation to Chris Turney, I remember writing about how deniers were Admirals in their own bath tubs at the time.

runner

You say .. "Those entrusted with pearls are honest not like the gw scammers and fraudsters."

Where is your evidence, all you have done is put together a few words without any evidence ??

Whatever way you try and twist it, Neneh was right about the election.
Disposing of Turnbull as PM was a huge factor; he did appear to be making some gains for the LNP just prior to being knifed. There had already been examples of PMs being knocked off, which had not gone down well in the electorate. People still do not know why Turnbull had been dumped.

The dumping of Turnbull was a major factor in the Liberal loss; but, it was quite clear from interviews, newspaper stories and polls that climate change was also a major issue. That turned out to be a factor also in post polling. Underlying the mess is the damage done to the LNP by Abbott and his extreme mates.