JOSEPHUS,
when you post something against climate change, I'll reply. But I expect to see some small sign that you actually read my reply. When you post something and I reply and you OUTRIGHT IGNORE IT AND THEN JUST POST SOMETHING ELSE, it shows what you are. I wrote this years ago — see if it applies to you.

Dogmatic deniers don't debate, they rotate. They have links to spurious, easily debunked papers, and they KNOW they're easy to debunk. So they fire them off like so many artillery shells. Assertion 1 is loaded.

FIRE 1: "It's not us, it's the sun!" they assert and post a link to a dumb website like WUWT. But will they read the replies? Will they debate the peer-reviewed science? Were they ever considering learning anything? Don't be so naive! Before they even read the reply they're loading shell 2!

FIRE 2: "It's just computer models and I don't trust computer models". Assertion and links posted. People who respect climate science try to answer, but they're wasting their time. While the answers come in, the tinfoil-hatter is already loading 3!

FIRE 3: "It's a conspiracy to tax the world and create a world government." Blah blah blah, on and on they go, never once being interested in an actual adult conversation about what the science says. They don't even realise their opinion has been bought for them, paid by the Koch brothers! http://youtu.be/IaKm89eVhoE

They don't debate, they rotate, from red herrings to straw-men to cherry-picking. Don't waste your time with tinfoil hatters like these.

CLIMATE CHANGE"
During the 7 year period from 1896 to 1903, before the vast land clearing, Industrial Revolution, before the first world war, and the second world war, before the millions of cars were on the road and the vast amount of coal mining to date, and the Green Party, I was looking at this period and here are some of the facts from the period.
. Rainfall for this period was 46% below the previous wet period
.Federation Drought, Heatwaves, Bush Fires and Dust storms, associated with 40% livestock losses in Queensland.
.Livestock numbers in Queensland reduced from 6.5 million to 2.5.million (cattle), and from 19 million to 7 million ( sheep).
.Western New South Wales, impacted by soil erosion, and woody weed infestation (1898-1899).
.Properties in the Western New South Wales were abandoned with collapse in carrying capacity, resulting in the Royal Commission investigating financial stress in the Western Division.
.Sir Sydney Kidman acquired properties, and nearly lost all by 1901, due to severity and wide spread nature of this drought.
.Tropical Cyclone Mahina struck Bathurst Bay ( Cape York) on the 4th March 1899, the surrounding region suffered a massive storm surge from the category 5 system, killing over 400 people - the largest death toll of any national disaster in Australian History.
Reports recorded that grass was ripped from the ground on the islands offshore and that fish and dolphins were left in trees,15 metres above sea level
This all happened before the new catch cry of "GLOBAL WARMING", and "CATASTROPHIC".
The words they use now to frighten the public.
Puppet Palaszczuk should look back at previous records to see what has happened in years gone by, and order an enquiry into the recent fires in National Parks, she would then find it is the incompetence of National Parks management. Instead of making wild statements, GLOBAL WARMING.!
Reference- QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT
ECOSCIENCES PRECINCT
Web: www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au
I sympathise with the devastation that farmers and public have endured over the past few years. Is this a matter of history repeating it's self.

Josephus,
that's all just SO irrelevant unless you have a metric to compare it to. Yes, Australia's had horrible droughts before, no one is denying that. But look at the scientific measurements of BOM! The trends ARE changing. Going off vague newspaper reports prior to the true scientific measurements of BOM just aren't cutting the cheese, OK?

Second, we KNOW CO2 traps heat. That's undisputed physics.

Third, we KNOW a doubling of atmospheric CO2 will raise global temperatures by 1.2 degrees C. That's physics + maths.

Fourth, the Climate Sensitivity multiplier is then applied and gives us a range of results depending on assumptions, but they tend to cluster around 3 degrees for the first doubling of CO2. We can't let that happen, as those same models show the results will be BAD!

Why do you fight this? I know plenty of Anglican ministers that accept the science. Coal pollution kills people and it will one day run out.

What is your problem with coming up with solutions to coal pollution, coal being finite, and coal ACTUALLY causing climate change? Why do you fight this? What on EARTH convinced you there's a (tinfoil hate) global 'conspiracy'? It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of! Seriously, have a nice cup of warm milk and a cookie and go to bed early. This global conspiracy crap you believe in might not seem as bad in the morning!

JOSEPHUS:
The other thing is what if you're right? What if there was a few hotter days back in the 1800's that were even hotter than some of our record breakers now?

What would that even mean?

See, weather is the dice rolling. Sometimes even normal dice will throw a bunch of crazy against the odds things. Double snake eyes, or stuff like that.

Climate is the average of the dice over time. So EVEN IF you are right and there was one super-hot day before our records began, that could be one instance of the dice throwing up something rare. But climate measures the fact that the dice are gradually being loaded over decades. It's not about one heatwave here or one drought there, it's about the averages across decades.

BOM confirms what we know from physics will happen anyway. Observations match the theory. The ice is retreating, the permafrost thawing, the seasons changing, there are more hot days and more heatwaves and more droughts and more super-dumpings as every 1 degree warmer it gets, the atmosphere can carry 5% more water.

Things are changing out there!

Hi Max, unfortunately the forums frightened bunnies from the hard right, will go to any extreme to deny climate change. They are simply too scared to believe other than what they are fed by the vested interests of Big Oil and Big Coal.

When the BOM publishes data these fools can't swallow, these deniests resort to such crap as branding BOM employees as Marxists, and the Bureau as a hot bed of communistic activity. If they were not so pathetic, they would be laughable.

Yeah, and it's getting *boring* again.

The anti-climate arguments here aren't even sophisticated. Even MHAZE started to struggle at the end there, and he's the master of looking down his nose at climate people.

The thing is, if I leave these forums now due to sheer boredom at the low level of discussion here on this topic, and then visit again in a few years, MHAZE will proclaim that he walloped me and that's why I slunk off!

But I caught him in his own Dunning-Kruger's!