Belly, it's not the news agency that causes me to disbelieve. It's being observant. Over the years I've heard the cause for climite change corrections. And I believed it. Then time passes and you see what's happened and what hasn't happened. The whole issue is like a child crying wolf when there is no wolf. Over and over again until there is no credibility.

And that's my issue with all if this. The lack of credibility combined with the closeness climite change causes are with the general causes to protect the enviornment, and clean up polution. It's not a matter of IF climate change is publically denounced as a mistake or worse a fraud; it's a matter of WHEN climite change is counted as a mistake or a fraud. Personally I don't want all the other efforts of preserving natural resources, cleaning up polutions and better waste management systems to be set aside because they are all tied too closely to a lie repeated over and over again.

My position is that the truth should be the standard, not scare tactics. So far that is a standard that climate change narratives fail to hold up to. Move along, and waste your breath on this sham no more.

On that note though Belly, you've asked a question. Who started this lie, and what do they have to gain. I assume that if I don't have an answer then you think that that proves I'm wrong?

I'm not a cop and it's not my intent to put those responsible to justice. There are theories and accusations that I've heard, some of them make sense too. Others just might be a possibility in order to throw one's adversaries under the bus. I'm sure you've seen the same people and the same groups blamed for promoting climite change for their gain.

Doesn't matter. Those who are ether foolish enough or powerful enough to continube such a sham, are unlikely to recieve any punishment, or repercussions. They are either too powerful (as some conspiracy theories perpose such as saying these lies are communist propaganda to weaken western societies) and they are not going to be put to justice anyways. Or they are the foolish ill informed public and scientists that don't know how the world climate works well enough to see they are doped or mistaken. No justice or negitive repercussions for them either, it's too large a group.

What does matter is the loss of concern and confidance over enviornmental issues. That's the real concern. Imagine all of the progress for preserving the enviornment lost because it is tied to an ongoing uncreditible lie. Personally I like natural reservations too much to throw them away for WHEN climate change is scattered as the lie that it is.

Dear NNS,

Firstly mate you really need to put a sock in it. My understanding is you aren't an Australian and right now probably isn't the time to be calling the whole thing a lie.

We have our biggest capital city under threat of catastrophic fire conditions today, something that has not been flagged before.

We have the extraordinary circumstance of both California burning while we have catastrophic fires occurring here.

Significant firefighting aircraft like Elvis use to be able to be shared between the hemispheres but that looks increasingly problematic given the extended fire seasons in both countries due to climate change.

To have a group of 23 former fire chiefs with over 600 years of experience seeking for months but not getting a meeting with our prime minister to warn about the exact same scenario NSW is facing now is very unsettling.

This is an emergency, we very much need action now and to be planning for a new fire risk regime, yet the very mention of the word climate change has this bloke putting the shutters up.

This is not a lie at all, and there is far more evidence for global warming than for the God you hold so much stead in.

Dear Hasbeen,

The earth is 33 degrees warmer that in it would be without the greenhouse effect. CO2 makes up about 20% of that effect. We have raised the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by a third thus far. How could anyone with even just a modicum of intelligence say there has been no impact?

The answer? They can't. Where does that leave you?

SR

"You said there was only one person in the article indicating a longer time frame – there were more."

WRONG - I never commented on how many people were in the article

"You said the trend of Arctic ice extent was increasing – it is decreasing."

WRONG - you don't understand trends. It doesn't mean to take two carefully selected points and take them as a trend. It involves a highly complex (for you) averaging of StdDev and least squares to get a sense of the gradient of the trendline. When you do that using recent confirmed data you find the arctic minimum has been increasing.

"You said "Its no closer to being ice free now than it was a decade ago." - there was less ice in October just gone than there has ever been from when records started."

Wrong - first the October data isn't confirmed. Its a guess. Second, if we ever get to an ice free arctic it'll occur first in September which is when the arctic reaches its lowest levels. So what happens in October is neither here nor there in terms of ice free predictions. But I get that you'd want to use guesses from irrelevant periods that support your pre-judged views than actual relevant data that doesn't.

"You claimed the animation wasn't from NASA – it was."

WRONG - never made such a claim. Your link was to some sort of search page. Somehow you assumed that everyone would work out which of those search finds you meant.

"And now you are claiming that the number of Google hits as evidence of something."

CORRECT - its evidence that the 2013 claims were widespread. You assert without any evidence that it was a prediction made by a small number. I can see how someone having a view based on evidence, rather than a view based on mere hope, might be confusing to you.

Belly wrote: "Then consider my view, Fake News is the product of the right
They use it constantly, to smother the truth".

So the chap who has conniptions at the mere mention of "the left" has no problem smearing the right.

Who in his fevered mind are the constant purveyors of "Fake News".

Hilariously the very 'report' he relied on to start this thread was fake news.

11000 scientists? Not even close. We'll probably never know how many actual scientists signed the 'report' because the people who put it together have now hidden all access to the signature list to stop others checking the names.

But based on the findings by the Canadian checkers, there's probably less than 500 scientists of whom maybe 10% had anything to do with climate studies.

But that sort of fake news is the sort Belly et al like and they'll never recognise they've been had.

Years from now the belly's of the world will still be talking of the 11000 as though its a fact.

Dear mhaze,

These were your exact words; “The article I linked was a mere example or the myriad of similar stories. You manage to find one guy in there that has a slightly longer time frame and then, you assert that he's the really-trooly scientist.”

So yes you did assert there was only one.

You say; “When you do that using recent confirmed data you find the arctic minimum has been increasing.”

I would love to see what torturing you have had to do with the data to get that result. So how about you tell us what have you used.

You say you never made the claim the animation wasn't from NASA but here are your exact words; “The link I was referring to wasn't the NASA video but this one (https//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Disappearing_Ice.webm).”

Finally you say about your Google hits “its evidence that the 2013 claims were widespread”. Show me any other scientific study which independently said the region would be ice free in 2013.

Mate, this propensity of not ever saying you are wrong is getting a bit thin. It's okay to fess up. Might be good for the soul. Give it a try for once.