Even if scientists did not disagree about climate change, nothing would necessarily follow as a matter of policy.

In order to justify any given climate policy, there would still be a need for some rational method to take account of the relevant human evaluations in the policy versus no-policy scenarios.

The mere unstated assumption that government is all-knowing, all-caring, and all-competent is simply not good enough. It has no basis in reality or reason.

And it is not a requirement of "science" that skeptics must swallow down that assumption as a precondition of entering into the discussion. Yet in the final analysis that is all the warmist argument ever amounts to.

Since the purpose of the exercise is 'ecologically sustainable development', and since that is defined to extend indefinitely into the future, therefore the knowledge problem concerns all relevant human evaluations *indefinitely into the future* for *both* the policy versus no-policy scenarios.

Even if they did, they would still need to figure out the value of the discount for futurity, a critical scientific datum of which the "scientists" are blissfully unaware.

Needless to say, they do not have, and are not capable of having such knowledge, nor rational method.

And then, even if they had all that, and even if the end result showed without bias and corrupt rent-seeking - which is legion - that the status quo is on balance against human welfare, they would still have no rational method of reconciling any given climae policy, back to the ultimate human welfare criterion, however they define it. (Note this is not a problem of mere difference of opinion with their critics. It's a probem of intrinsic self-contradiction.)

Also, unless the alarmists are going to argue that governments have no interest in the topic, then all and any "science" produced by governments' interested dependants is presumptively invalid for conflict of interest. Merely imploring blind faith in government is not good enough.

The result is a complete failure of justification for any climate policy.

Taswegian

None of your examples relevant to social impact of knee jerk government policies, more designed to placate an elitist cohort in the wealthy suburbs, in a panic over an unproved science of climate change.

Laying the blame for recent bushfires on climate change, as you did, doesn’t cut the mustard either.

There are multiple factors outside of climate change which add up to a more holistic view of bushfires and their causes.

Forest management is pretty much agreed, the top of the list.
Slack planning on a local government level, allowing development to progress into dangerous bush areas with inadequate escape paths, and little to none regulation on clear fell zines around dwellings. is also a major cause towards the disaster they caused.

Also, all but a tiny minority of fires were blamed on lightning strikes from dry storms.
Storms are an event spanning a billion years. Nothing to hang your coat on with that one.

Regarding the extreme heat in the Western suburbs of Sydney, the greatest aggravation for that is sprawling development and changes to topography of ground cover, causing dangerous increases in temperature previously covered in grass land.
Again the fault of a government policy not climate change.

as for the poor old pensioner struggling through blistering summer heat you evidenced, most likely that pensioner is unable to utilise cooling technology because of excessive price hikes in power bills, and an inability to compensate for them with taxpayer subsidised solar power on the roof they don’t own. This is the cohort being neglected by government policy that keeps the power bills of the wealthy at very low levels; no pain to them as they agitate for more crippling policy towards exaggerated climate change amelioration.

And question two, what about that one?

Dan

Criticism from all the usual leftie " swingers from the 60's"... eh Don,?.. well done!

"Respect" as Ali G would say. They are the luddites, tree huggers (what did the trees do to deserve such abuse?), Gaia mis interpreters, Klimate Khange Kulists worshippers and childish with they slurs and distain.

Just ignore them, as won would do with a dog turd, let then dry out, shrivel up and scrape them off your boots, that's what I do!

Dear Alison Jane,

Of course you ignore. You have to. You can't engage in any meaningful manner because your cupboard is bare. As a head in the sand denier you have no cogent arguments to put, no rational avenue to make your case.

So you are left projecting about dog turds. Rather apt because that is what your posts really have become, things to step around if you see them in time.

SteeleRedux,

Please have pity on Alison Jane.

She is angry because she never got to do Latin and German at university level, where it really counts.

"Of course you ignore. You have to. You can't engage in any meaningful manner because your cupboard is bare. As a head in the sand denier you have no cogent arguments to put, no rational avenue to make your case" SR.

Wow SR you describe your every post to a "T". Some day you could actually insert some fact into one of your posts, & we would all swoon.

Why do scientists disagree about climate change, because only some of them got a seat on the global warming gravy train.