The problem is not the truth this author holds dear, but the sick social system we are forced to endure.

Could he not address this critical subject in 153 different languages and dialects applicable to the entire inhabitants of this sickly Country, so we can all be educated equally?

And could he consider for a precious moment, that when he complains about men competing in women’s sport, or perverted men freely using women’s public facilities without any consideration of harm, he is the “odd” man out.

Or, that when he complains bitterly of the atrocities perpetrated on innocent Israelis on Oct 7th’23, he is totally on the wrong side of history by such a view, contrary to the accepted norm of the sick society, which state that Terrorists are not genocidal maniacs at all, but resistance fighters needing our sympathy and taxpayer support of billions of dollars, poured into their cause by all in the West that support the insane notion of climate change?

I’m sorry to tell you, but there is no hope of arguing for a sensible position on any subject in this our sick society.
Maybe take a holiday to Tasmania, sit in an apple tree eating apples, and watch the beautiful sunsets; that’s the same sunset setting over our once beautiful Country previously known as Australia now Austral-Ass.

Straight off the bat, the author is wrong - apparently confusing climate consensus with the infamous Oregon Petition.

The consensus refers to climate scientists, not just “scientists” in general. No one’s asking botanists or engineers whether they think human activity is warming the planet. The agreement comes from people who actually study the climate for a living - atmospheric scientists, geophysicists, climatologists, etc. Pretending the consensus includes physicists and podiatrists - and then dismissing it because of that - is either deeply dishonest or wildly uninformed.

From there, the article just gets worse with tired old eye-rollers like “the climate always changes” - as if that somehow proves this time it’s not us, or that it’s not a problem. That’s like saying forest fires have always happened, so who cares if someone’s running around with a can of petrol.

He also trots out polar bears and 1930s heat records like they’re gotchas. But polar bear numbers rose due to hunting restrictions, not a stable climate, and cherry-picking one hot year from nearly a century ago doesn’t erase the fact that the last decade has been the hottest on record globally. Climate is about long-term trends, not convenient exceptions. But Harris never bothers with the big picture - because it completely undermines his entire argument.

Then we get the classic “it’s only 1.1 degrees warmer” argument, which completely ignores how average temperature changes hide far more extreme local effects - heatwaves, floods, disappearing ice, rising seas. Small shifts in averages can mean massive shifts in outcomes. He also leans on this idea that adapting is cheaper than acting, but never engages with the scale of “adapting” to displaced populations, destroyed crops, and collapsing coastal cities. Spoiler: it's not.

And of course, no piece like this would be complete without quoting Michael Crichton on science - because no consensus can withstand the uninformed opinion of one celebrity.

There's no need for a part 2 - Harris hasn’t debunked anything. He’s just recycling denialist talking points, tossing in some smug rhetoric, and hoping readers mistake contrarianism for insight.

WTF?

Is this bloke still at it?

I thought he might have been dumped in the "please ignore" bin along with others like Ian Plimer whose ideas people have debunked so many times one wonders why Plimer bothers anymore.

The author, when the Science cannot be argued against, dismisses it as being irrelevant with statements such as "so what" and "well Duh".

Yet when the Science makes arguments about possible future outcomes they are "spurious claims".

He trivialises Scientific consensus as a "show of hands".

The author states: "The message of history is simple adapt to climate change or die!" as if this is some revelation. In his own words: "Well Duh".

So when human endeavour invests in research and technology with renewable energy forms our author describes initiatives, such as The City of Ottawa's Climate Change Master Plan, as " doomed to failure".

It appears that for the author it has been a long and winding mind journey for him to understand the concept of adaption to climate change.

His position seems to have shifted from renewable energy as doomed to fail to "Hey, I just got it!...adapt to climate change or die!"

There is nothing wrong with the climate: the fault lies with the gutless, stupid politicians, starting with Scott Morrison, who have put us under the slavery of Net Zero and the consequential massive rises in electricity prices, and the drop in living standards.

Sorry. It goes back further than Morrison to John Howard, who kicked off the requirement for a percentage of unreliable energy in the mix.

No wonder the big users of our coal like Communist China look at "handsome boy" Albanese and most of our other politicians with contempt.

All Dutton had to do to be a winner was to pledge to get out of the Paris Agreement; but he has proven to be as stupid as the rest of them.

The only Western politician in the world who gets it is Donald Trump.

There is a consensus that temperature have risen since the 1850s. There is a consensus that man pumping more CO2e into the system since the 1940s has played some indeterminant roll in that rise. That's the extent of the so-called consensus.
There is no consensus that the warming has been solely caused by man. There is no consensus that the warming has been detrimental to man. There is no consensus as to what will happen in the future. There is no consensus as to whether future warming will be dangerous. There is no consensus as to what to do if it is determined that it would be dangerous to civilisation.

We are told that the current warming is unprecedented and that we must upend society to combat the assumed problems that might occur in the lifetimes of our grandkid's grandkids. But we know to a reasonable degree of exactitude that temperatures since the outset of the Holocene have been higher than at present for at least 25% of the time. That is, 3000 of the past 12000 years than have been hotter than at present. Yet corals survived, polar bears survived. Rainforests flourished. Humankind flourished. Average maximums in Brisbane are 5C higher than Melbourne and 2C higher than Sydney yet people, particularly retirees flock north seeking the heat. Yet we fret over 1 degree warming or threatened 2 degree warming by 2100AD.

I must have read a different article to JD.

JD writes: "confusing climate consensus with the infamous Oregon Petition."

But the Oregon Petition isn't mentioned. (Perhaps its was implied!!)

"heatwaves, floods, disappearing ice, rising seas. Small shifts in averages can mean massive shifts in outcomes. "

There's no much point addressing the gish gallop of supposed problems. But to take just one, "The IPCC states there is low confidence in detecting global-scale trends in flood frequency or magnitude due to climate change." Still every flood, in our land of "flooding rains" is attributed to the ubiquitous 'climate change'