6. First IPCC meeting was held in 1988 in Europe, during the one of the worst snow storms that Europe had ever recorded.
This FAILS to understand the difference between weather and climate, and way before climate changes were predicted to hit. But compare Garnaut's predictions of 12 years ago to this last year's fire season? Hmmmmm?

7. 2008 the British Climate Change Act...
They should have just mass produced nukes like the French did and they'd have some of the cheapest cleanest most reliable power in Europe, like the French do.

8. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
It's not a FAILED PREDICTION if there's no EXPIRY DATE on it is it?

9. "European scientists", claimed that Italian ski fields would snow free by 2008:
again who? What link?

10. In February 2019, the USA, all of Europe, and Russia were all up to their eyeballs in snow. It was even snowing in Los Angeles, which it just like saying is snowing in Brisbane.
Doesn't understand that the reducing temperature gradient between the Arctic and equator has destabilised the Jet Stream so that sometimes in pockets in a warming world, weird counter-intuitive things like some areas getting COLDER because the Jet Stream is 'Drunk on climate change' and wandered too far south is actually a thing explained by the physics. Again, not my problem this copy and paste list of yours is retarded and doesn't know some of the basic science. I'm a humanities major that didn't do High School physics or chemistry, and even I know this!

Oh, I got you Max. I must validate everything that I write, but that does not apply to you? I get most of my information from "Dumbass Denier" websites just like you get most of your information from Dumbass Climate Cultist websites. The most interesting aspect of youtube videos pertaining to climate change was that only five years ago, youtube was awash with Climate Cultist websites, and nary a sceptic site could be found. Now youtube has hundreds of "Dumbass Denier" sites which indicates to me that the worm has turned.

Since I knew little about climate change except for what I read in history books (Plutarch wrote that most Romans agreed that the climate was getting warmer), I kept right out of the debate until I had some more information. I began watching Youtube video's from both sides, and my opinion was that the "Dumbass Denier" sites were much more convincing. Especially since the Climate Cultist presenters usually exhibited the same supercilious, superior attitude that you do, while submitting "facts" and arguments which even a dumbass electrician like me could punch holes in.

One "Dumbass Denier" site informed me of something I could relate too, that the earth warmed and cooled in roughly 1000 year regular cycles. I knew this must be true because my reading of history had informed me that naturally occurring cyclical climate changes had occurred during human history, which had serious effects upon the history of mankind.

All it took was a simple Google search involving "Photos, temperature graphs, 10,000 years", and whadya know? There were graphs aplenty all showing more or less the same thing. The earth warms and cools in regular cycles and our present warming period is only different to every other regularly occurring warming period in that it coincided with the industrialisation of the human race.

Another significant factor convincing me that the Climate Cultists are wrong, is that HIGW is a position pushed by the educated, middle class, socialite socialists, who from my perspective, always manage to get everything backwards as some sort of class fashion statement.

Sorry, but where are the sources to your crap assertions above? If you're going to indulge in puerile copy and paste exercises, I WILL call you on it and ask you to at least link to your sources. "Show your work" as they used to say in High School.
>Now youtube has hundreds of "Dumbass Denier" sites which indicates to me that the worm has turned.
That's funny. So because Climate Skeptics are circulating the same top 50 Denialist hymns around ever more frantically as we start to SEE climate change burn down Australia, therefore the worm has turned?
Oh, and on your 1000-year theory? Yeah, I'm really going to trust the half-baked theories of an amateur history pundit I met on the net over professional climatologists. 😉 Especially if that history fan tells me he’s developed his OWN version of THE most commonly sung Denier Hymn, “Climate’s changed before.” Check the thermometer graph over to the left here. https://skepticalscience.com/


You’ve literally just quoted the top of the charts! Thought of that all by yourself did ya? 😉
The climate has changed before? DER!
Climate scientists study this all the time. Paleoclimate helps us establish the climate sensitivity to CO2 and is a bedrock to modern climate science. Rather than some mystery that climatologists have somehow accidentally overlooked, paleoclimate is one of the foundations!
http://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf
As well as observation of physics and computer models the IPCC studies ancient climate to calibrate and test their computer models. There are a few uncertainties, but that's science and they are making advances all the time. Basically, asserting that "The climate has changed before!" as some sort of objection to climate science shows an incredible ignorance of the whole topic. The IPCC know this, and are studying the various causes and shifts.
http://skepticalscience.com/humans_survived_previous_changes.html

And in deep paleoclimate history, super-greenhouses with dead, anoxic oceans are the stuff of nightmares.

Just go tell a climatologist that "Well, the climate's changed before you know!?" and they'll laugh in your face.

Ah, LEGO, a tradesman, displays a clear division in the political spectrum.
Those with desirable valuable skills and those without.
Those without are drawn toward expressing concern for subjects such as environment and social justice. It's about the need to be "valued".
Fear of missing out where individuals are free to choose drives the yearning for a large all encompassing state where they might be provided a place.
The failings environmentalist inspired state control is on full display with the fires. Hence the panic and desperation to blame it all on CC.

Back to the original question of the discussion. No the fires aren't the result of climate warming. The issue is the dangerously increasing fuel loads a result of well intended but poorly thought through laws and policy.
What other outcome could be expected from adoption of the ideas of the intrinsically impractical?

To Max.

Then call me out. I submitted ten examples ( I have many more) of fanciful "scientific" predictions from climate "scientists" which were laughably wrong. Most of those examples are well publicised common knowledge, and you know it. I don't need to give verifications for the Cultists claims of cities being submerged, polar bars drowning, or the Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery's notorious claim that "the dams will never fill again". It all has been well publicised in the media for years, and our readers know it. Everybody knows that the Himalayan glaciers did not melt and the Arctic is not ice free. They know that the USA, Europe, and Russia were drowned in snow in 2019, and the ski resorts are still running.

As an experienced debater, I know what you are doing. Unwilling to focus upon the fact that the so called "scientists", who claim to be experts, are making predictions that are demonstrably wrong, you instead throw red herrings by demanding I verify what you, and everybody else, already knows is correct. Prevaricating only works for so long. You would be better off admitting that I have a valid point, and retreat to a more defensible position.

The planet warms and cools, warms and cools, in repeating cycles. That is the historical record, and the cultists can not air brush that undeniable and inconvenient truth away. The earth is in a warming period right now, and if the previous 9 warming periods are a guide, the planet will warm another 2 degrees before we plunge into a serious ice age. You could argue that CO2 emissions might exacerbate that warming trend. But you can not claim that the earth's warming climate is significantly affected by human CO2 emissions unless you prove it.

My proof is in the pudding. The scientists have been making ridiculous claims that unless the world changes it's ways, (meaning, destroy capitalism) starting RIGHT NOW, the earth is going to turn into something resembling Venus. So far, their numerous "expert" predictions have been laughably wrong. Conclusion? They don't know what they are talking about

Dear Lego,

How are you going old chum? Up to your old tricks I see. Let's have a look at your list of 'alarmist climate scientists'.

Well the first doesn't actually mention any by name so it is a little hard to attribute any quotes so let's deal with the second.

You claimed in it that “NASA's James Hanson said that "Manhatten would be underwater by 2008."”

He said no such thing. This is pure distortion from an interview done in 1988 which the reporter describes as thus;

“When I interviewe­­d James Hansen I asked him to speculate on what the view outside his office window could look like in 40 years with doubled CO2. I’d been trying to think of a way to discuss the greenhouse effect in a way that would make sense to average readers. I wasn’t asking for hard scientific studies. It wasn’t an academic interview. It was a discussion with a kind and thoughtful man who answered the question. You can find the descriptio­­n in two of my books, most recently The Coming Storm.”

Since then various denier websites had done a Chinese whispers number on it and the 40 years became 20 without a mention of the doubling of CO2.

And here you are, helping hype up predictions through disinformation. It is you lot who should be called out as the true alarmists.

Shame.

Now is there another on your list you wish to hang your hat on? More than happy to dissect any you want to put forward.