Your assumption seems to be that:

1. Legislation that is not before parliament and looks unlikely to pass through the hostile senate should somehow be considered 'inevitable'. That is not how it works.

2. The huge, growing, and increasingly angry crowd of Australians loudly and insistently demanding action on climate change over and above the promised 5% target reduction by 2020 should 'give up' because a new government was elected with a 5% target, replacing the old government with a 5% target.

After being given repeated opportunities, you apparently can't explain why 'giving up' would the appropriate thing at this juncture.

Whereas the filipinos said was that climate change made typhoon Haiyan worse, and that climate change would continue to make such storms worse into the future.

These two statements are completely different. Typhon Haiyan is not proof of AGW. Tyndall, Fourier and Arrhenius finished 'proving' AGW 100 years ago. Typhoon Haiyan is a visceral reminder of the kinds of things that will happen as the troposphere and oceans warm.

That's a little discourteous. My suggestion is that if you want yourself and your ideas to be treated with respect, that you likewise treat others with respect.

Calling stupid legislation stupid is merely accurate labelling. To withhold saying that someone's stupid ideas are stupid on the grounds that that person is a legislator is to engage in politicing.

Why are you asking us? Surely if you want to understand the films content, you could look at TFA yourself, and study the history of the museum.

Your understanding of the predictions made by climate models is completely off the wall insane, and laughably wrong. You need to get a handle on the basic facts before presuming to criticise either the science of the actions of others in response to that science.

I found a few who said that the increasing severity of these sorts of storms in specific regions is linked to changing climate - but that is completely different statement and to collate the two as one would indeed be disingenuous. And nobody would want to be regarded as disingenuous.

Would they?

The new government has exactly the same emissions target as the old one. They just plan to do it in a less competent fashion.

Indeed. Discussions on the matter are starting today and will ramp up in the coming months. https://www.getup.org.au/get_togethers/climate-catchup. Feel free to join at your location.

Not analogous. The most recent surveys indicate that 60% of Australians favour stronger action on climate change. A better analogy would be a giant rock rolling down a hill, crushing all before it.

Well, they lied.

For one thing, the planned replacement (Direct Action) is far more interventionist (and therefore socialist) than an ETS. Ironic no?

I don't think we have an intention to give up. Why would we?

Doctors have known for years that smoking causes lung cancer. When you were younger, you readily believed that smoking causes lung cancer, as does everyone you know. But then because of some idiot friends, and because you yourself are an idiot, you took up smoking. Suddenly, you no longer think that smoking cause lung cancer.

You say you want the medical community to convince you, (not prove but convince) that you, personally, can contract lung cancer by smoking, before you will stop smoking.

When you present this argument to your doctor, he points out a few things:

(a) It's his job to present the facts, it's not his business to convince you. You are responsible for your destructive actions, past, present and future, not the doctor.

(b) If you want to disprove the link between smoking and lung cancer, that's YOUR JOB. Nobody owes you a personal proof, and nobody is going to give you one.

(c) You imagine your fondness for smoking means that you should somehow be compensated for having to give it up - this is delusional. Instead, if someone else contracts cancer because of your second hand smoke, you, yourself, are liable.

(d) The fact that you previously accepted that smoking causes cancer is an indictment against you - you only stopped accepting it because it was difficult for you personally. This has no impact on the concrete pillar of objective facts. Not even a scratch.

In response, you walk out in a huff, vowing never to see a doctor again, after all, the thigns they say are offensive and impede your liberties. Then you die a long slow death - of lung cancer.

Get it now?

No they are not. The previous government was largely dysfunctional. The new government made much noise before the election about removing the ETS in place in Australia because it was slewed toward making big emitters pay, who coincidentally happen to be the primary financiers of the conservative party. Now they feel committed to removing the ETS, but intend to replace it with a system of regulation which will achieve the same ends, but cost considerably more, on the basis that to do otherwise would hurt their financiers, and thus them.

As it turns out they are quite incompetent and seem unable to progress their agenda at all - in this case, due to the widespread unpopularity of their scheme there's every chance they will never get the legislation through - and if they do, it will damage them significantly, since the voices demanding stronger action on climate in Australia are far stronger than the voices saying nothing should be done.

Is there a methodological reason to NOT treat the ensemble as legitimate? Please describe this reasoning in detail.

Define precisely what you mean by "skirting along". How far below 0.05 are the models results, exactly?

I suspect you are misinterpreting the responses. Mostly when we dig down on these sorts of remarks, high level, without data or empirical basis, no repeatable observations, we find them to be the work of some deceptive, brainless, mouth breathing denialist. You might be an ok chap, but I can't really make a conclusion until I've seen the data.

It's a matter of probability. Perhaps someone who sounds like a denialist is, in spite of the evidence, a rational, coherent person who is nevertheless ignorant of the science or misled by paid shills (like Anthony Watts who is paid a salary by the Heartland Institute to LIE about climate science, or Judith Curry, who deliberately misleads by wrapping genuine science in a penumbra of sneering psuedo-scepticism).

Generally the best measure is as follows:

1. The person refuses to provide specifics but only speaks in generalities - likely a committed denialist

2. The person provides specific (albeit incorrect) facts. ignorant or misled by liars

Like many people I have a lot of sympathy for the genuinely misled and will try to help them if I can. The deliberate lies and deception on the part of the denier hierarchy makes my blood boil.

Actually the article makes no mention of anything related to climate science. It is mainly focussed on instances where results are found not to be reproducible and using a frequentist methodology. Climate models are very reproducible and don't use a frequentist method - they make predictions, not observation.

And yet you refer to these supposed problems in the climate science in generalities. Why is that?