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 **