And Shorton said, " Nothing."

He's still trying to come to terms with what a shirt front actually is.

He's still trying to come to terms with what a shirt front actually is.

Is he still wearing a bib like you? I'd like to think you're a bit more intellegent than that.

Leading into the G20 Mr Arrogant has declared Climate Change is not an economic matter.

Actually, "climate change" is an economic matter.   Not much real science in it.

Actually, "climate change" is an economic matter.   Not much real science in it.

I recognize the thinking behind this comment. It's called invincible ignorance. I'll give the writer the benefit of the doubt - perhaps he knows nothing about science. It certainly seems so.

I recognize the thinking behind this comment. It's called invincible ignorance. I'll give the writer the benefit of the doubt - perhaps he knows nothing about science. It certainly seems so.

It appears that you don't realise that the global warming money grab is just a scam.   If it was real, why are the goal posts moved all the time.  It's hot - global warming.   It's snowing more than normal - global warming.  There's a cyclone - global warming (except there is not as many as a few years ago.)

Catastrophic Anthropological Global WARMING was a theory that with the increase of CO2, the global temperature would increase dramatically.   Unfortunately for all the money thrown at it, the global temperature has failed to rise by anything close to any of the hundreds of models produced.   Therefore the theory is wrong and maybe something else is the reason.

Why does the BOM "homogenise" the temperature readings from 100 years ago to make them appear lower thus making the current temps to be sooo much hotter?   If CAGW is real why would they need to do that?  

The seas haven't risen, the temps haven't gone up and now the missing heat is claimed by some to be hiding at the bottom of the oceans which is totally against the LAWS of thermodynamics.   It is called a law because it has been proved beyond all doubt unlike the floored theory of CAGW.

Notice I didn't use the term climate change - because the climate has, is and will always change!!  Evolve or get off the planet.

Donald; when were you brainwashed? As I said, it is blindingly obvious that you have no knowledge of science whatsoever.  You didn't used the term "climate change". Why not? That's what you said has very little science to it. Why can't you stick to the subject?
Why are the goalposts moved all the time? Because science postulates theories to explain observable fact,  and theories  change as more evidence is adduced.  It is so ironic that you say, "Evolve... ". The Theory of Evolution has been changing ever since Darwin put it forward. Science, my dear fellow, is alive. It must change. Please go and do some proper scientific reading, get someone knowledgeable to explain it to you, and then comment.

Donald; when were you brainwashed? As I said, it is blindingly obvious that you have no knowledge of science whatsoever. You didn't used the term "climate change". Why not? That's what you said has very little science to it. Why can't you stick to the subject?
Why are the goalposts moved all the time? Because science postulates theories to explain observable fact, and theories change as more evidence is adduced. It is so ironic that you say, "Evolve... ". The Theory of Evolution has been changing ever since Darwin put it forward. Science, my dear fellow, is alive. It must change. Please go and do some proper scientific reading, get someone knowledgeable to explain it to you, and then comment.

The term goalpost is wrong - that implies the end result.   This scam has always had the same end result, the scare tactics in the middle are what keep changing.   No ice at the poles by 2010, sea level rise by 100 metres, no rain to fill dams, heat hiding in the deep oceans, etc.  
Yes, science postulates theories to explain facts, yet when facts change, ie the globe has not warmed as predicted, the theory of global warming only changes it's name to climate change.   Climate always has changed, no need for a new theory on that one, but in this case the "culprit" remains the same.   Where are the other theories on what caused the increase in global temps a few years ago, and any theory on why it has slowed down?  No, still the same ol' evil CO2.  Those on the gravytrain don't want to get off.
Science is alive, but this scam has so many holes in it.

Whats' changed? Centuries ago flat earthers also attacked scientists and free-thinkers.

These days the Inquisition has been replaced by right-ous media ‘commentators’ who viciously attack and ridicule without any opportunity for come back. Donald’s comments seem to simply ‘parrot’ what redneck radio is pushing.

Was nice to see Obama ignore the Basil Fawlty briefing.

The term goalpost is wrong - that implies the end result.

Completely wrong. It implies no such thing, and is frequently used in reference to the game in progress.

Yes, science postulates theories to explain facts, yet when facts change, ie the globe has not warmed as predicted, the theory of global warming only changes it's name to climate change.

Interesting - where on earth did you dream that one up? Ignore what the media calls it, and, for the umpteenth time, concentrate on genuine science.

Where are the other theories on what caused the increase in global temps a few years ago, and any theory on why it has slowed down?

How many theories do you think there are/were? Again, for the umpteenth time, theory is changed in accordance with the new evidence that is found. Those with fixed ideas stick with grim tenacity to their beliefs despite all evidence to the contrary; science changes and keeps up. Simple really.

Those on the gravytrain don't want to get off.

What gravy train for heaven's sake? Just who do you think is operating one? So many scientists being paid for standing around doing nothing? The mind boggles (P.S. Look up "gravy train.")

We went through the same sort of nonsense as  this when science had established the causal link between smoking and cancer, emphysema, heart disease et al. Conspiracy theories abounded then, and were exposed as rubbish. The idea of a worldwide scientific scam is utterly absurd. Dreamworld is on the Gold Coast; not in scientific establishments.

Donald are you for real? So ignore the massive weight of scientific peer reviewed research on this and go with what exactly? Call it a gravy train if you want but the money is in polluting and that is the gravy train. I actually have spent time studying this at uni being taught by scientists and just because some of the modelling has been off (only because the modelling processes have improved) doesn't mean it is not happening, science loves to disprove theory's and yet with this its all been a matter of degrees (pun intended) of separation but the theory that we are having a adverse impact on the planets climate has not.

Peer reviewed = you agree with what I wrote, I'll agree with your cr@p.

"There are none so blind as those who will not see." (John Heywood )

I'm happy to talk science with those who understand it.
No further comment for Donald - it would be totally wasted.

There are huge holes in the 'climate science' community's modelings. Many of the closest modellings to what's observed have been out by orders of magnitude. When I was properly training in chemistry and physics that was nothing to be proud of... The fact is you can peer review all you like, but until you have a model that can explain the past and closely predict the future your model is wrong.

There are huge holes in the 'climate science' community's modelings. Many of the closest modellings to what's observed have been out by orders of magnitude. When I was properly training in chemistry and physics that was nothing to be proud of... The fact is you can peer review all you like, but until you have a model that can explain the past and closely predict the future your model is wrong.

I don't believe there are "huge holes', but, as has been said repeatedly, the science is ongoing. There will be errors, they will be recognized, and additional evidence will correct them. Nobody with any brains expects instant, deadly accurate answers. Climate change has been going on for decades; the recognition of this phenomenon is relatively new.

I don't believe there are "huge holes', but, as has been said repeatedly, the science is ongoing. There will be errors, they will be recognized, and additional evidence will correct them. Nobody with any brains expects instant, deadly accurate answers. Climate change has been going on for decades; the recognition of this phenomenon is relatively new.

Yes it has been going on for ages, but for all its worth if you have a look at a scale from the past 2000-10000 years where we are hasn't been the warmest or even the coldest period of time.

Realistically all that we do to try and stop the world heating up will be cancelled out by the world doing it's own god damn thing eventually.

There are huge holes in the 'climate science' community's modelings. Many of the closest modellings to what's observed have been out by orders of magnitude. When I was properly training in chemistry and physics that was nothing to be proud of... The fact is you can peer review all you like, but until you have a model that can explain the past and closely predict the future your model is wrong.

You probably also think that most people go to the doctor's for free.

You probably also think that most people go to the doctor's for free.

Wrong, I don't understand why most people expect to go to the doctor for free...

"There are none so blind as those who will not see." (John Heywood )

I'm happy to talk science with those who understand it.
No further comment for Donald - it would be totally wasted.

For those who want to stop climate change, I have wondered what climate they actually want.
A little cooler - 1970's style? A bit windier? A bit warmer - medieval times? (Probably not!) Or 1993? Or 10,000 BC?
The climate has always and will always change and man has very little influence on what happens.   The sun has more say over the change than man ever will.

For those who want to stop climate change, I have wondered what climate they actually want.
A little cooler - 1970's style? A bit windier? A bit warmer - medieval times? (Probably not!) Or 1993? Or 10,000 BC?
The climate has always and will always change and man has very little influence on what happens. The sun has more say over the change than man ever will.

Donald a word of advice mate, give it up, because you are just wasting your time. Your opposition here ignores facts and logic. They ignore it because they have their “belief”, and here is what Carl Sagan said about “belief”.

“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”

Valvegear & others:

Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity.  Let’s go for a walk along it.

The first 770 metres are Nitrogen..
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That’s 980 metres of the 1 kilometre.
20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour.
10 metres left.
9 metres are argon.
Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that’s carbon dioxide.
A bit over one foot.

97% of that is produced by Mother Nature.
Its natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left.
Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.
Thats the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.
Less than the thickness of a hair.  Out of a kilometre!

Isn't it wonderful how the mere mention of climate change send some people into a total irrational frenzy.
Some see it as either black or white, fact or total BS,
Any discussion rapidly degenerates to a totally pathetic "My roger is bigger than yours" cat fight.

Some become so transfixed, they loose all rational and resort to primary school girl name calling.

Well here's my thoughts (and no doubt someone will come up with a pathetic reason to debunk it)
Last time I was outside, the world was NOT black and white, it was multi-coloured, so why do people treat issues as Black and White with no in-between?
Climate change is real, and it is a continuous change. This world Does warm and Does cool, History shows us it has.
What man does with his environment will effect that environment and our climate.
Now for some strange reason, maybe because many see the debate as Black and White, some people expect to see change overnight and because it doesn't change overnight, then it does not exist!
The climate has never changed overnight, it's always been a very slow progression, climate change takes centuries NOT hours.
But the way man has polluted our world in the last century will speed the change. To me that's what the debate should be all about - What we can do to slow or decelerate the acceleration the last century has caused.
Despite what people from both side claim, the people alive to read this post most likely will never see a significant change, but our grand kids and their grand kids WILL!

Now because you and I won't see it doesn't mean it's not happening, Some will, and have already, stuck their head in the sand and choose to ignore. After all, "I'll never see it what do I care"

Well some other people do care, and don't want to leave it to our grand kids kids to fix it up.

I don't believe there are "huge holes'

If you don't think being an order of magnitude, or even several of them, out is not a huge hole then I'd like to know what you think it is.

but, as has been said repeatedly, the science is ongoing.

Really? See, I know this to be true, but I recall being told by the EU, Juliar, the Greens and many other 'climate scientists' that the "science was in on climate change", and that the "science is settled". Both are always likely to be bollocks.

There will be errors, they will be recognized, and additional evidence will correct them. Nobody with any brains expects instant, deadly accurate answers.

Maybe we shouldn't expect the data to exactly follow the hypotheis, but I don't think it's too much to expect that the data trend might follow the hypothesis, but it has not been doing so. Might we expect that at some time the hypothesis and observables might maybe even look like converging? Let me know when I should expect that, and when the two start to converge I'll start to think of the hypothesis as being valid.

Climate change has been going on for decades; the recognition of this phenomenon is relatively new.

It is not relatively new, that's an absurd statement. The climate has been changing, conservatively speaking, for decades, of decades, of decades, of decades, of decades, of decades, that's six orders of magnitude longer, and even that is likely four orders short of the actual time we're talking about.

The fact is this, as a scientist you CANNOT believe in a model that features a pure and isolated link between atmospheric carbon and temperature when in periods of increased atmospheric carbon, temperature fails to increase as expected, or worse, goes down. When you have such a model that makes predictions on temperature in relation to atmospheric carbon and observable (measurable, real world) data does not fit you MUST rethink your model and hypothesis. The 'climate science' community does not do this, instead chosing to try and explain away their shortfalls, rather than reconsidering the magnitudes of carbon's contribution, and/or investigating other atmospheric gasses.

Climate change is real, and it is a continuous change. This world Does warm and Does cool, History shows us it has.
What man does with his environment will effect that environment and our climate.
Now for some strange reason, maybe because many see the debate as Black and White, some people expect to see change overnight and because it doesn't change overnight, then it does not exist!
The climate has never changed overnight, it's always been a very slow progression, climate change takes centuries NOT hours.

These are mostly correct statements, and from about the 1940s to 1970s global temperatures were down in real terms. Meaningful climate change (like evolution) takes centuries, which is why I am not concerned about an apparent trend that won't behave as alarmists would like, and is only really reflective of a decade.

It is not relatively new, that's an absurd statement. The climate has been changing, conservatively speaking, for decades, of decades, of decades, of decades, of decades, of decades, that's six orders of magnitude longer, and even that is likely four orders short of the actual time we're talking about.

Aaron, for God's sake read what's written before blowing your mouth off.
I repeat what I said, and what you ignored, "Climate change has been going on for decades; the recognition of this phenomenon is relatively new."  This is true unless you want to tell me that we've had satellite weather observations, computer modelling et al for all of your "decades, of decades, of decades, of decades, of decades, of decades".
Read, son; read! Read what's written; not what you think might have been written.

Aaron, for God's sake read what's written before blowing your mouth off.
I repeat what I said, and what you ignored, "Climate change has been going on for decades; the recognition of this phenomenon is relatively new." This is true unless you want to tell me that we've had satellite weather observations, computer modelling et al for all of your "decades, of decades, of decades, of decades, of decades, of decades".
Read, son; read! Read what's written; not what you think might have been written.

I read it, and I got it, you wrote it and missed it. You wrote "Climate change has been going on for decades", but the climate has been changing for billions of years, it's the recognition that has been occurring for mere decades, not the change...