Meanwhile our idiots in Canberra have decided to stop measuring the damage in the southern atmosphere.

What can I say? I was going to say that I did not think 2016 was going to be a record breaking year in terms of global warming but my next warning was going to be that we're going to reach the full one degree above average (measured since the 1960s — not since the industrial revolution of 1850) by 2019 or 2021.

By 2032, we could be reaching a full 2 degrees Celsius above such average and this has been my estimate all along, the shit will hit the fan. Climate banding will be all over the place, but by 2100, it's likely the increase of average temperature would reach more than 4 degrees C if the present trend continues. We're in deep shit, but we can survive, though there will be traumas...

Does anyone else find Q&A's format frustrating because questions aren't given sufficient debating time and if they were, would we be willing to listen to those with opposing views, asks Sue Stevenson.

A FUGUE has begun overtaking me on Tuesday mornings once more. It’s like a massive headache, except it’s comprised of congealed frustration rather than scotch. It was blessedly gone over the Christmas break but now it’s returned in full force. It is the #qanda hangover.

Tony Jones said it himself on Monday night. Something along the lines of, “Well, we covered that question. Not very deeply, but at least we covered it.”

But we could say that about every question on Q&A, couldn’t we? They try to shove as many questions in there as possible. It results in this low-level anxiety that hovers all the way through the show, a concern about the schedule, a need to keep to the agenda and not go too far off track. And then as soon as we start getting into something juicy, it’s too bad because we have to go onto the next topic.

Q&A really needs to consider either (a) having less questions or (b) extending its format out to an hour and a half. Whichever way, it would be less stressful and less frustrating than the deal we’ve got going now.

read more: https://independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/qa-deep-questions-inch-thick-answers-and-the-public-square-we-need,8694

Gus: Forget it. Q and A should be canned. I have harped on this subject in depth on this site several times. Q and A cannot give you any real answer to anything because reality is quite boring. Scientists study the warming of the planet daily, but it's a hard slog and crunching numbers with Lagrangian equations on TV is not really entertaining. Tony Jones would interrupt within 5 seconds of the first fact which he himself would not understand. No, Tony Jones is not after facts and figures. He is after e-mo-tions. TV is an emotional medium. It is like theatre, music stadium and megachurch. you need to believe!... and be "entertained" like a food fight on MKR. and if you don't believe, that's okay as long as your response is emotional, defensive, attacking, BUT not full of facts and figures. 

So how come some-one controversial like Mark Steyn gets on Q & A when he has no scientific understanding of anything? And he is quick at pointing out a few quirkies in the climate change studies to show it's all wrong!

Ah I see the character is "controversial" and he has a big mouth which he uses at every street corners available on the Australian mediocre mass media de mierda including Q and A... Steyn hides his grand scientific mediocrity behind a wall of human right activism in defence of free speech in which anyone can talk shit — as long as it's louder than proper scientists can, because their medium is too complicated to shout — and be understood like a fuck! or a shit! or "a global warming is crap"!... Fantastic emotional ignorance! Magic!

They, the boffins at the ABC, tell us, Q and A is here to give you the opportunity to make up your mind as too which way is the exit when trapped in a mine with no lights, 500 metres underground. The viewers are like mushrooms waiting to be collected by the clever guy with the biggest bucket of lies.

Mark Stein has the right to express his opinion but he can do it in the park on a soap box — NOT ON THE ABC, unless someone, really up to date with the latest on climate change, can shoot him down in flame for the length of the entire program non-stop with precise facts and figures and scientific observations which of course would show Steyn as a clever imbecile. 

Pigs will fly... The format of Q and A is about confrontation not learning...

So here is what we can find about Stein:

David Icke is a weirdo.

That’s not me saying that, but Canadian Mark Steyn, who has been crowned “world’s greatest conservative commentator and writer” by the Institute of Public Affairs.

Steyn is currently on a speaking tour around Australia, courtesy of the IPA, where the Canadian author and commentator will bless Perth, Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne and Cloncurry (?) with his greatness. He's already been on the ABC and Sky News.

Steyn’s characterization of Icke came during his last IPA-sponsored visit to Australia in 2012. David Icke was a professional footballer, then a sports presenter, and then, after meeting a psychic, an all-seeing son of the “godhead”. 

Icke is a conspiracy theorist of some repute, who says the world is – and I’m summarising here - run by reptilian illuminati overlords. Icke also has his eyes on a tour of Australia.

Icke also thinks the moon is a “hollowed-out planetoid” and more likely a spaceship. It used to have buildings on it, but NASA got rid of the evidence (I did interview Icke once, many hollowed-out moons ago).

Steyn was making fun of Icke, but used the former Coventry City goalkeeper to make a point that however crazy his views were, he should be allowed to express them.  Steyn is a “free speech” advocate.

But what Steyn didn’t mention, is that Icke also thinks human-caused climate change is a grand hoax and is actually a “stalking horse for world government.”

Go and check out Icke’s website if your little reptilian constitution can bear it.

Just like Icke, Steyn attacks the science and suggests climate scientists are frauds. In Steyn’s case, he has a particular dislike for Professor Michael Mann. The Penn State scientist is suing Steyn for defamation.

To help pay for his defence, Steyn has been flogging an IPA book on his own website. 

The IPA ran a fundraising campaign to raise $175,000 to help pay for the book, telling donors they could claim a tax credit in return. So I do hope that while Steyn’s visiting down under, he thanks the Australian Tax Office.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2016/02/16/climate-science-denier-mark-steyn-tours-australia-and-other-reptilian-illuminati-weirdness

And of course, Q and A "advertises" or at least makes honourable mention of Steyn's book which on average are about 80 per cent shit. Improve sales and interest. ILLEGAL on the ABC, but "they can get away with it when they talk to the guy...

See article at top.

Meanwhile Mark Steyn himself tells us with great humility as the One-Man Global Content Provider:

On Thursday I joined my old editor at The Australian, Tom Switzer, on his radio show Between The Lines. It was a wide-ranging conversation, from free speech to Donald Trump, the Middle East to the Supreme Court. Along the way, I quoted a favorite expression from Lord Moulton:

85 years ago English judge Lord Moulton, said that human action can be divided into three domains. At one end is the law at the other is free choice and between them is the realm of manners. In this realm Lord Moulton said, "lies a domain in which our actions are not determined by law but in which we are not free to behave in any way we choose. In this domain we act with greater or lesser freedom from constraint, on a continuum that extends from a consciousness of duty through a sense of what is required by public spirit, to good form appropriate in a given situation".

The "realm of manners" is in severe retreat around the west: Everything now is increasingly mandatory or forbidden, and ever more regulated and policed by the state.

Lord Moulton was also the fellow who made a lot of poison gas for the British in 1917, though "he thought it was a departure from "civilised" warfare" — whatever civilised warfare is...

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/true-shocker-spike-in-global-temperatures-stuns-scientists-20160313-gni10t.html