Captain Cook seemed to make it out here ok without the need to strap an outboard motor behind HMS Endeavour.
peterc500,
At least you are correct about one thing, I guess you have to be right occasionally, outboard motors didn't come until a little after 1770.
Thus the need, from time to time, of a long rope, a longboat, and a bunch of sailors on the (inboard) end of the oars.
Or you ran aground, Cape Tribulation was not a random name, nor is Cooktown at the mouth of the Endeavour River.
And, "the science" is never settled, the sum total of human knowledge is never static, and if you had any knowledge of the history of the earth, of geology, and the real history of climate change, you would know that the climate had changed constantly in the course of both human recorded and geological history.
Up until about 30 years ago, the "science was settled" that we were headed for another ice age. Not all that long ago, the "science was settled" that witchcraft was the biggest threat to civilisation, thousands of women (always women) were killed as witches to "save" civilisation.
Does this suggest anything to you?? Do you understand the earth conditions that gave rise to what is now coal (or diamonds), or why Greenland is called Greenland??
The real question is: What current climate change is there, and how much of it is in response to the activities of the human population, how much of it is beyond our control. Considering the views of one of the greatest scientific minds of our times, Freeman Dyson, is well worth the effort.
He certainly does not agree the "science is settled".
One thing that the group that you seem to support agree about, based on their "models" ** is:
If all the "Paris" 2050 emissions reductions are achieved, the 2050 temperature increase will be reduced by approximately 0.01 (one tenth) of a degree Celsius, +/- 0.01 degree --- or put more simply, somewhere between zero and sod all.
AND nothing Australia does will make any measurable difference, including stopping coal exports.
Tootle pip!!
** Modelling: A process developed to make astrology look good and sound plausible.