Not_Now.Soon,

I always call a spade a shovel.

I'm not the one who started with the insults but I'll give as good as I take.

Loudmouth is a BS artist who was caught out being a BS artist and he can't handle it. Tough bananas, welcome to the real world!

Mr O,

You are clearly the worst offender with response to insults with close to zero contribution to the debate. Combine this with your clear anti Chinese racism and you are one of the most odious posters on this thread.

The thread originally was about whether there was a "climate emergency" not whether AGW was real or not.

The term "emergency" suggests that there is an existential crisis that needs to be resolved very quickly, and that all viable options need to be addressed with alacrity. The fires would be a good example.

However, the left whingers clamouring for AGW to be treated as an emergency are the same Fwits that refuse to consider nuclear power or even HELE coal as an interim measure and consider the fleet of wind turbines and solar panels as permanent power supplies rather than the limited time high maintenance units that they are. A fleet of 30 modern nuclear reactors would eliminate nearly all electricity related emissions and provide GHG free power for electrical transport etc. A complete boycott of goods from high emitters such as china etc would also be called for.

If these measures are ruled out then there is no emergency.

Not Now Soon,

"We're not talking about one nation changing it's economic and energy landscape."
No, but where does climate science abolish individual nations? We're asking each individual nation to do their bit. That's what the Paris AGREEMENTS are. They're not Paris LAWS or Paris National Abolition or Paris International Senate Overlords. It's the Paris AGREEMENT. It's about individual nations AGREEING to do something. Asserting anything else is tinfoil hat land! True madness!

"We're talking about a world wide change (if global warming is taken seriously and given real preasure to achieve)."
Yeah, how terrible! Energy independence forever, clean skies, less pollution, less health costs (which actually DOUBLES the cost of 'cheap coal'), and a healthier population. How horrid!

"narrative that we're on the verge of a world wide collapse."
RUBBISH! More harsh droughts and loss of biodiversity by 2050, more sea level rise and wildlife extinctions by 2100. I see most climatologists talking about economic pain in various scenarios. Extinction? Only the most extreme end of the climate scientists mention this, and are usually rebuked by the rest of the climate community.

Please acknowledge you understand this was a false accusation from yourself, or provide evidence of your assertions!

"That fear based narrative has been on for several decades now and hasn't changed it's tune."
Rubbish! See above. Dr James Hansen's projections in the 1980's were for increasing CO2 emissions around now and various consequences later this century. The idea that they've been CONSTANTLY pushing climate change as a civilisation ending event "ANY TIME NOW..." for decades is just a lie. Please retract it.

Once again tell me, some have zero trouble telling me I am a victim of a huge fraud
Too that I consume left wing junk for breakfast
Teach me, force me to see the truth
Show me how us believers in the science got the climate to change
Started fires in the Attic, America, we know nearby Asia is burning so forests can be replaced by palm oil
That the Amazon is being murdered by an idiot leader to?*develop the country*
How did we tell the ice to melt
What made this drought come so hard and fast on the back of the last two
Why has temperature risen, seas too show me please

To Max Green

Since you asked for it, here is a sample of climate scares. Look through them carefully.

http://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions

To Belly.

So far I don't see anyone saying that we aren't taking care of the enviornment, or that there aren't enviornmental emergencies. Just that people are saying that global warming is not the cause of any of it.

On another note to consider, IF salt reactors capable of eating nuclear waste can provide an enormous amount of energy (and clean up nuclear waste), then that opens up one other option too. Not to just use the energy for the energy crisis. But to first use it for the water crisis. Australia is surrounded by salt water. Water that can be processed into fresh water with desalination plants and RO plants.

Both of these treatments create a side waste product of brine that is considered more waste then the fresh water that you get out of the process. Nonetheless less with another treatment plant specifically for the brine (and the energy that it would require) would solve the issue of lack of water in Australia.

That issue of a water resource that can be tapped into is a awesome project that could lead Australia into a future with better conditions for both crops and for reducing fire seasons. And best of all it's actions that Australia can take on it's own instead of waiting for the rest of the world to climb aboard on agreement for emissions and pollution reduction.

Just need the energy promised to provide a path for your own enviornmental security.

Listen "Not brain now so don't try to make me brain"!

I asked you about CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE!

Your article starts with Paul Ehrlich's failed population bomb scares. Even though his particular predictions failed, there are more people hungry today than ever before, but this is BESIDE THE POINT!

It turns out you don't even know what you are discussing. You're going on about a history of broader failed environmental predictions. We're talking about something much more specific, a very science and physics based subset of "environmental predictions" called CLIMATE SCIENCE.

Climate science itself has never predicted any broad scale specific catastrophe that would have failed by now, as most of them are still a distance away. Tim Flannery said some unhelpful stuff about Sydney's dam a few years back, but he's a climate author, not a trained climatologist writing studios climate science. Oh, and look at Sydney's dam! Even with the new desal running at full capacity and a little rain here and there, it keeps going down.

So, just a reminder, the subject today is CLIMATE SCIENCE! Try to keep that in mind. Now I don't know whether you're a liar or just plain confused!