OK, the cynics have had a good run: They clearly think that all climate science is as political and ignorant as they are. Do you guys really think that pollies willingly took on this mess? Denial is the much easier option and they stuck with it as long as they could get away with it.
For those of you who do not see greenie plots under the bed...
Yes, the science truly is scary. Most of the climate modelling done uses a range of scenarios and model types. Until recently, modelling results that imply fast changes on human timescales (<100 years) were rejected from results as they were not publishable. ie. They were just too extreme and didn't have any backup "proof" that would be demanded if decisions were to be based on these results. (and they would lose too much credibility, not to mention funding)
Turns out that the more radical models were more accurate when it comes to the last 5-10 years of climate. Only the radical models actually predicted ice shelve instability, atmospheric temperature anomolies, salinity extremes, etc that we are seeing today.
What is nasty is that even more radical scenarios now have to be taken seriously (by science: the flat-earthers will go on denying no matter what.) These scenarios are scary, and only the foolish and/or ignorant should deny them.
On a futuristic note...this may be the spur we need to crawl out of our cradle. Having soiled it, we now only have to live with the soiled version long enough to learn to live outside of it. Maybe we needed a Soiled Earth as a stepping stone. (Otherwise we'd never take the step, there's always "more important things down here" right up until the comet hits!)

So let me see. The Vatican continues to encourage people to breed
like rabbits and wants to deny them family planning, so thats what
much of the third world does. 80 million a year extra mouths
to feed are the result.

Next in the Middle East, they are building indoor ski slopes,
to attract tourists, all burning oil. Record amounts of planes
are being sold, as people head for their overseas jaunts.

The Greens think we should all peddle away on our bicycles to
save the world.

Other then a feelgood exercise, are they even aware that Australia
hardly matters in this debate?

My mother used to reckon that motor racing was some bl@@dy idiot, trying to get back to where he started from, before a whole bunch of fools.

So now we have AGW.
A whole bunch of bl@@dy idiots, chasing an absolute fool up a blind alley.

Oh, how I dream of bricking up that alley.

"... show that he hasn’t digested the even greater urgency provided by the latest science.

Last year there was record Arctic ice melt, discovery of a reduction in the oceans’ capacity to absorb our carbon pollution, ..."

Lol...THIS year, the Artic ice has rebounded to even thicker levels, and in some place thicker than it has been for 15 years...but I guess Christine hasn't read that latest science..... (Or that wind has much more to do with the ice than temperature...again, more science Christine apparently hasn't read)

Lets not forget that Garnaut, as an economist, has not put any sort of cost benefit analysis into his early report. Isn't that the question now? Otherwise he is simply parroting the IPCC report, which he admits is charged with being politically influenced and not objective (by no less than the House of Lords).

Christine: "Garnaut is right to say (PDF 634KB) that climate change is so urgent that, if we don’t act by 2020, the game is over."

Actually, if we, Australia, don't do anything by 2020 it will make not a jot of difference. Christine is avoiding the vexed issue that we are largely irrelevant to climate change, it's what China and the US do that counts.

If you want to try to put forward a cogent argument that driving our economy into the ground will encourage China and the US to agree to binding emissions targets, go ahead. I like a good fairytale.

And why aren't the Greens lobbying for a complete halt to immigration, especially refugees? Every time we bring a poor person to Australia their greenhouse gas emissions go up enormously. Better for the planet if they stay poor.

I don't deny man-made global warming, don't get me wrong. But the Greens are more interested in self-righteous flagellation than proposing solutions that have a chance of succeeding

I would rather believe the 3,000 or so leading international scientists than the deniers and sceptics that have no logical argument other than they don't feel it is possible for human activity to create climate change. Why would the scientists have any axe to grind ?