Correct Jamo.

For decades now our media, schools and universities have promoted the AGW cults views based on shonkey climate models and "hockey stick" graphs prompted by Al Gore.

Its about time the worms turn and start pointing out the REAL costs of CCCers policies built on misinformation.

Lets start with the impact of limiting native forest fuel management, starting with this bush fire and all back to 1995. The cost in life's, property, forest, habitats and animals can be calculated. More so than the intangible costs inferred by the climate models.

Then there is the cost due to renewables, coastal planning, RET schemes……. That would be a fun and large cost benefit analysis.

Shamefully, the only group who gets funding to do such analyses are the like of the pro climate change groups like the IPCC. Don't think any academic would get past the 'bin file' in their grant applications for funding!

Not fakenews, but definitely contested news. Here are some links to cheer you up Chris.

https://notrickszone.com/2020/01/02/unsettled-scientists-find-ocean-heat-content-and-earths-energy-imbalance-in-decline-since-2000/

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/01/new-80-year-deep-ocean-temperature-dataset-compared-to-a-1d-climate-model/

https://www.thegwpf.com/ocean-warming-not-as-simple-as-headlines-say/

The measurement of world temperature is fraught. I only use the satellite data because it is the only dataset with global coverage and transparency. Everything else is constantly, and inexplicably, being adjusted.

The problem I have with the ocean heat figures is that it is the oceans that heat the globe, and if they are cooling, how is the atmosphere getting hotter? The satellite record confirms that it is, so perhaps everyone's ocean heat figures are wrong, or maybe it is an artifact of surface temperatures increasing, but deeper temperatures decreasing. Or something no one else has thought of.

ps, last sentence is missing words, should read "anti-AWG academics"

The solution is at hand!! GO VEGAN!!

Peta have the answer, it's not the old farts that are the problem but the new ones.

http://www.peta.org.au/news/bushfires-and-climate-change/?utm_source=PETA%20AU::E-Mail&utm_medium=Alert&utm_campaign=0120::gen::PETA%20AU::E-Mail::Bushfires::::aa%20em

“In the 2008 Garnaut Climate Change Review, which examined the scientific evidence around the impacts of climate change on Australia and its economy, he predicted that without adequate action, the nation would face a more frequent and intense fire season by 2020.” ABC

Well it looks like this is the future for this debate. Every prediction which is realised will be an excuse to double down. You lot of recalcitrant deniers will scramble for any bit of flotsam to stay afloat and seemingly get more shrill as the tenuousness of your positions becomes harder and harder to ignore.

As to Dr Roy Spencer his take on the Australian bushfires was “My personal opinion, based upon the available evidence, is that any long-term increase in wildfire activity in any specific location like Australia (or California) is dominated by the increase in human-caused ignition events, whether they be accidental or purposeful.”

So nothing about the long term drought nor the record temperatures. So what does he believe in? Well this opening remark at a Heartland Institute conference will give some idea;

“The purpose of this event is to promote and expand energy freedom in the United States, as outlined in President Donald Trump’s bold America First Energy Plan, a proposal first released during the 2016 presidential campaign.”

Steel Redux, You calling climate change realists (you try to insult/demean us by calling use delusional, deniers) as recalcitrant. NOW that really is the kettle calling the pot BLACK! Almost made me choke on by black coffee, brewed in freshly filtered rainwater from my own water tank, all of which are full.

Thankfully, the BoM predictions on no rain till late March April were wrong.. but of course they use down scaled global climate models don't they!

As for Garnaut, his a bob Hawkes lackey economist whose career was revived by Ken Rudd for goodness sake. AND who makes his money on Boards of renewable energy companies. If he got that ONE prediction write ( not difficult as we always have fires and he missed prediction the 2009 one!).. As always never let a good story line like AGW, get in the way of reality and facts