"In fact, the Garnaut review relied on the Australian climate science community to make its scientific case. "
This worries me. Australian climate science is in a very sad state. Not much in the way critical thinking going on here. Lots of group think and ideology.

"Furthermore, projected emissions over the next few decades as well as the risks of severe impacts are higher than previously thought."
Hope the projections are bit more accurate than Hansen's 1998 emission predictions.

"My view is that anyone with a higher degree in science who maintains that the Earth stopped warming in 1998 should hand their degree back."
Thankfully nazis like Roger do not posess this type of power or we'd all be goose stepping down the climate change yellow brick road. Most people arguing about 1998 are pointing to the fact that model's temperature projections and reality started diverging at this point and continue to. Should we pause and reevaluate the models before continuing with radical changes? The answer is an obvious yes. My view is that anyone with a higher degree in science who maintains that the Earth continued warming after 1998 should hand their degree back.

"Ten-year trends range from virtually no change to +0.35C a decade, averaging about 0.2C a decade over the whole sequence."
Wasn't he just bagging scientists about using ten year trends??

"Second, arguments that climate models are fatally flawed means jettisoning the science that underpins the models, which in turn means having to jettison our understanding of environmental and earth science."
Not jettison but definitely reevaluate. Seems to be a little resistent to this idea. He sounds like the Captain of the Titanic. Full speed ahead! Our models are unsinkable!

"Those who wish to discount this scientific effort are driven by their own ideologically dominated models, which are unreviewed, unaccountable and unverifiable."
Is he talking about the IPCC here? A little harsh but if the shoe fits.

"They should be disregarded."
He is talking about the IPCC. Advice taken!

I'm no scientist but I can generally tell when one side has the backing of facts in an argument.

The side with the facts to back them up "plays the ball" and the side without "plays the man".

Every pro climate change rebuttal I've seen consistently "plays the man", this one is no exception.

Hadz” Every pro climate change rebuttal I've seen consistently "plays the man", this one is no exception.”

Agree totally with your statement.

I am sure Lenin has a quote which fits with the aspirations of the AGW zealots.

He had quotes for most things, like

“tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”

To the final words of the text

“Those who wish to discount this scientific effort are driven by their own ideologically dominated models, which are unreviewed, unaccountable and unverifiable. They should be disregarded.”

Disregard those who dare dissent?

The heretics, the infidels, the great unwashed.

When the result of all this quasi science and dubious modeling is going to effect the hip pocket of every man woman and family in Australia

I think of that famous American maxim “no taxation without representation”

The ordinary Australians, beyond the pro-AGW/CSIRO scientific elite, have an absolute right to express their skepticism and be heard as a voice of reason and concern.

Rather than being shut out and used merely as a tax cow, to be milked by ‘governmental servants’ through their offices and institutions such as CSIRO.

Maybe there should be a public enquiry into the political moral and social balance which drives such organizations as CSIRO and the real worth of the work they actually do.

Roger's logic was a bit hard to follow. His claims as to temperature records seem radically different than what I've been reading. I don't trust what he's telling us. Not at all.

Daisym

The article plays the man? Where. There is a arther long appraisal of what consitutes scientific method and the conclusion that we should disregard those who don't use said method.

I don't see any 'nazis like Roger' or commnets about the CSIRO milking tax cows.

Who exactly does the author insult?

The only real sin the author commits is a distinct lack of referencing. But actually insulting anybody per se--don't think so.

We are told the ocean level will rise 1 metre, correct? Where will all the water come from to cover 72% of this planet's ocean surface? Who has that specific data? Who has measured the mass of rock hidden beneath arctic and antarctic snow and ice? Who has measured ice underwater versus eleven parts ice makes ten parts water? How much did the ocean rise last year?

Why does media show steam coming out of cone shaped water cooling towers while news dialogue refers to carbon emission?