Could Mr Abbott end up in jail due to criminal neglect on dangerous climate change.

Should a case be built so to charge him if he continues the neglect?

i think the greens should all be in jail.. for all those that drowned trying to come here from Java after they and the krudd thought it was such a good idea to kill the pacific solution...and open the floodgate to the people smugglers.. well done greens..jail time coming up...those people including babies dont have to worry about YOUR CLIMATE anymore do they

cods wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 7:02am:



You realise Mr Rudd is a Labor Politician, not a Greens.

meanwhile back on topic ...

MOTR wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 7:23am:

Politicians rarely get what they deserve, outside revolution. That said, all it takes is one person with a gun. The last time I used a .308, my aim proved true. 

Seriously, if the worst comes to pass, things are unlikely to turn really nasty until long after we're all dead. Those who could and should have acted will escape their just deserts.

salad in wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 7:36am:



What evidence are you talking about and why cherry picking a minute time frame of 16 years.

Swagman wrote on Sep 24^th, 2013 at 9:01am:



The 1950's are new again?

Abbott is the worst "leader" this country has ever seen.  He'll go down in history for all the wrong reasons.

His comments above, however, are not unreasonable.

What is unreasonable is the amount of scaremongering coming from the misinformed AGW disciples.  Their religion is in its dying days.

"Responding to the call, the Chicago-based Heartland Institute has just released the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change 2013 report, Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science.

The 1,018-page report convincingly and systematically challenges IPCC claims that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing “dangerous” global warming and climate change; that IPCC computer models can be relied on for alarming climate forecasts and scenarios; and that we need to take immediate, drastic action to prevent “unprecedented” climate and weather events that are no more frequent or unusual than what humans have had to adapt to and deal with for thousands of years."

The 14-page NIPCC Summary for Policymakers is easy to digest and should be required reading for legislators, regulators, journalists and anyone interested in climate change science. The summary and seven-chapter report were prepared by 50 climatologists and other scientists from 15 countries, under the direction of lead authors Craig Idso (USA), Robert Carter (Australia) and Fred Singer (USA).
Unfortunately, the “mainstream” media and climate alarm industry have no interest in reading the report, debating its contents or even letting people know it exists. They have staked their credibility, reputations, continued funding and greater control over our lives on perpetuating climate disaster myths. So it is up to the rest of us to ensure that the word gets out—and we do have that long overdue debate on climate.
Perhaps most important, say the NIPCC authors, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has greatly exaggerated the amount of warming that is likely to occur if atmospheric CO2 concentrations were to double, to around 800 ppm (0.08%). In fact, moderate warning up to 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) would cause no net harm to the environment or human well-being. Indeed, it would likely be beneficial, lengthening growing seasons and expanding croplands and many wildlife habitats, especially since more carbon dioxide would help plants grow faster and better, evenunder adverse conditions like pollution, limited water or hgh temperatures. By contrast, even 2 degrees C of cooling could be disastrous for agriculture and efforts to feed growing human populations, without plowing under more habitats.
The NIPCC also lays bare the false IPCC claims that computer models “prove” recent global warming is due to human CO2 emissions, and are able to forecast future global temperatures, climates and events. In reality, the models greatly exaggerate climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide levels; assume all warming since the industrial revolution began are due to human carbon dioxide; inputdata contaminated by urban heat island effects; and employ simplified configurations of vital drivers of Earth’s climate system (or simply ignorethem), such as solar variations, cosmic ray fluxes, winds, clouds, precipitation, ocean currents and recurrent phenomena like the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (El Nino and La Nina).

In computer lingo, this can be summarized as: Faulty assumptions, faulty data, faulty codes and algorithms, simplistic analytical methodologies and other garbage in—predictive garbage out.
(Canada Free Press)