Aussie Government Broadcaster Gives Climate Skeptics Airtime

@Steven Mosher
I’m happy you consider the prospect of the inevitable crash of the AGW fallacy amusing, because I suspect you’ll be laughing on the other side of your face soon enough.
Trump has sealed the fate of the Paris agreement. Assuming America begins to grow it’s industrial and commercial output over the coming few years, there will be many competitors also jumping the Paris accord ship in order to compete. China won’t say they’re doing it, but they will do it. Germany will be under so much pressure from its own population because of it’s wildly rising domestic and commercial energy costs, they’ll be forced to make a drastic change of course. France will follow Germany simply because, well, it’s France, and that”s what France always does.
And the main reason?
Trump will be coming up for re-election in 4 years or so and by then will have a spreadsheet of successes as long as your arm, in terms of employment and commercial success, but more than that, he’ll demonstrate how much money he has saved the country. The moment he produces evidence of having cut America’s global debt because of it’s commercial growth, the public will be clamouring to vote for him. The scandals will evaporate as the MSM jump on the bandwagon and start getting on his side.
There will then be ambitious politicians in the UK, for example, who will see the opportunity of saving the country £14Bn a year at the stroke of a pen and making a name for themselves. They will condemn AGW openly and they will use the usual suspect as ammunition. Our NHS had a deficit of £2.6Bn in 2016 yet we are currently chucking £9Bn at a climate that has barely changed in 40 years, or more. We Brit’s might be suckers for a cause but we’re not entirely stupid.
Every other contributor under the Paris accord terms will begin to do the sums and start asking questions, and they will turn to the sceptics for answers because, so far, asking the alarmists has only cost them money.
The whole game will turn from a political exercise into a commercial race. In my opinion, Trump is determined to demonstrate that trading, on a level playing field, is a far better way to earn money and pay down debt than bleating about everything and stopping business flourishing.
The writings on the wall mate.

You’re right, no Leftist has EVER admitted to being wrong, but that doesn’t mean they won’t jump ship like the rats they are when CAGW starts going down.
I expect a lot of ‘I never claimed’ and finger pointing from some of them. And utter silence from others. Many will just keep claiming that the REAL danger has always been decades from now, and just stop pushing it. Then just wait out the publics short attention span.
Look at the hight of the Population Bomb scare compared to now, for an example of how the next few decades of the Climate Change scare will go.
~¿~

Steve
Regarding your inquiry:

Still no links to any science, data, measurement or even photos refuting the fact that 90% of all glaciers are melting at an alarming rate over the last 30 years.

You do not have to worry, there is no alarming glacier melt. Indeed, glacier melt was far more pronounced in the early part of the 20th Century before CO2 emissions became a significant factor, as you would know had you read H.H. Lamb Climate, History, and the Modern World (1982), pg. 248

[T]he retreat of the glaciers after about 1925 became rapid. It was almost entirely during the [pre-1950] twentieth century warming that the Alpine glaciers disappeared from the valley floors up into the mountains. Similarly great retreats occurred in Scandinavia, Iceland, Greenland, in the Americas, and on high mountains near the equator.

The melting of the Greenland glaciers has dramatically slowed down these past 30 (or so years), compared to the rate at which they were melting during the early part of the 20th century. I guess that this is not so surprising since like the USA (and Iceland), temperatures in Greenland are no warmer than they were in the 1940s.
If you are interested in Glaciers then you ought to be aware of the 2017 paper by Fernandez & Fernandez published in The Holocene.. This paper examined the Greenland Glaciers. It found that as from 1898, the average retreat of the Greenland Glaciers to 2005 was some 1334 metres, of which retreat some 1062 metres had melted by 1946, and only some 272 metres as from 1946 to 2005.
You will appreciate that some 80% of all retreat had taken place in the first 46 years of the 20th century, and only 205 as from 1946. The rate of retreat dramatically slowed the past 50 or so years. For example:

Studies of aerial photographs and satellite images show that the glacier snouts have retreated by more than 1300 m on average since the LIA maximum (considered to be AD 1898 in Gljúfurárjökull and AD 1868 in both Western and Eastern Tungnahryggsjökull as explained in the publications presented in section ‘Introduction’; Figure 2), with an altitudinal rise of more than 100m. The retreat accelerated rapidly (15.3 m yr−1) during the first half of the 20th century (Figure 2). In the second half of the 20th century, the retreat decelerated considerably, reflected in the lowest values around 1985 (5.2 m yr−1) and a trend shift in 1994, with an advance observed in Gljúfurárjökull.

AND

The trend in Western Tungnahryggsjökull during the first half of the 20th century was a more rapid retreat, showing the highest average rates of the whole period (19.5 m yr−1). By 1946, this glacier had retreated almost 90% of the total recorded between the LIA maximum (1868) and 2005 (Table 1). In the 1946 photograph, this significant retreat of the ice reveals two large moraines in the centre of the deglaciated area. The snout retreat slowed down considerably during the second half of the century, especially in 1985 (1.5 m yr−1).

So you will note that in Western Tungnahryggsjökull, the glacier retreat had slowed down to just 1.5 m yr−1 during the second half of the 20th century down from a rate of 19.5 m yr−1 between 1898 and 1946. So when the IPCC considers the level of CO2 to be material the immediate impact is a dramatic slow down in the rate of Glacier retreat.
There was a recent study conducted of the Himalaya glaciers which showed that the vast majority of the glaciers were stable these past 12 years. See the April 2014 paper (in Current Science Volume 106, No.7) Are the Himalayan glaciers retreating? by I. M. Bahuguna1, *, B. P. Rathore1, et al.. I quote from the abstract:

a study has been carried out to find the change in the extent of Himalayan glaciers during the last decade using IRS LISS III images of 2000/01/02 and 2010/11. Two thousand and eighteen glaciers representing climatically diverse terrains in the Himalaya were mapped and monitored. It includes glaciers of Karakoram, Himachal, Zanskar, Uttarakhand, Nepal and Sikkim regions. Among these, 1752 glaciers (86.8%) were observed having stable fronts (no change in the snout position and area of ablation zone), 248 (12.3%) exhibited retreat and 18 (0.9%) of them exhibited advancement of snout. The net loss in 10,250.68 sq. km area of the 2018 glaciers put together was found to be 20.94 sq. km or 0.2% ( 2.5% of 20.94 sq. km).

But even going further back in time (ie., back to the 1960s) whilst there has been glacier retreat, it is not dramatic (circa 0.2% per year), and certainly not what one would categorize as melting at an alarming rate, viz:

The study 31 reveals that there is 0.4%/ yr loss in area from 1969 to 2010 for small glaciers o f the Trans-Himalayan region 0.2% to 0.7%/yr from 1960s to 2001 in the Indian Himalaya and 0.12%/ yr from 1968 to 2007 in Garhwal Himalaya.

Steve,
Nowhere near 90% of glaciers melting, nor are those (perhaps half) which are doing so at a pace more rapid than before the past 30 years. The vast majority of glacial retreat since the LIA took place before 1987.
Many factors go into glacial advance and retreat. In many places where retreat has occurred, such as on Kilimanjaro, there has been no local warming at all. In that falsely iconic case, the loss of ice cap is caused by deforestation on the mountain’s lower slopes.
The ice on which I spend the most time, in Alaska and Chile, is growing.

You might as well stick Cox on a show about brain surgery, as the particle physicist “who knew a lot”. I’m sure his learned contributions would be just as banal. Here’s the brilliant Brian in action:
https://thetab.com/uk/manchester/2015/11/20/brian-cox-got-the-emc-%C2%B2-equation-wrong-in-a-first-year-lecture-16156
Small wonder they only let him loose on first year undergrads.

Steve,
You are regurgitating errant lies and nonsense perpetrated by mendacious CACA advocates.
The Medieval Warm Period was global, as was the Little Ice Age which followed it, the Dark Ages Cold Period which preceded it, the Roman WP before that, the Greek Dark Ages CP before that, the Minoan WP before that, the Biblical CP before that, the Egyptian WP before that and the Holocene Climatic Optimum before that. Prior interglacials show the same alternating warm and cold intervals as the Holocene.
And within these centennial-scale secular intervals are ~30-year long countertrend cycles, such as the coolings of c. 1888-1917 and c. 1948-77, preceded and followed by warmings of similar length.

Troll posts link to propaganda site and then declares that it has won.
How typical.

Earth has already showed us that more CO2 doesn’t in fact warm the planet.
Arrhenius and Callendar thought that it was doing so in the first half of the 20th century and would do so more in future, but the cooling of the ’40s to ’70s showed their hope for beneficial AGW false. That cold interval occurred under rising CO2, as did the 20 years of flat GASTA during the so-called “hiatus”.
The CACA hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified, in both senses of the term. The 1.2 degrees C per doubling found in at least some labs simply doesn’t show up in the real, complex climate system, let alone IPCC’s fanciful 4.5 degrees C. The reason might be negative feedbacks or that the lab results are simply wrong.