One paper does not a scientific theory make. Again, you...

One paper does not a scientific theory make. Again, you misunderstand the peer review process and associate it with the layman's take on the word.

https://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/what-is-peer-review

The short version is that many experts in the field read the paper, and in my experience every aspect is scrutinised. I say this as a PhD candidate nearing the end of the program (biochemistry and analytical chemistry), and I am currently going through the peer review process for research I've conducted. Scientists who volunteer to be peer reviewers generally enjoy scrutinising work to the nth degree and will request more evidence all the time.

I'm sorry mate but just because you want to dismiss the science, it doesn't make it any less valid. Top tier journals trade on their reputation and peer review is not to be scoffed at. If it were I'd have put out more than 2 publications so far.

As to whether Australia's carbon emission is significant enough to affect climate change? I couldn't tell you as its not my field but I would agree with you that it doesn't seem likely. From an economic standpoint however, China is pushing renewables hard (and they DO make a big difference) and there's now a lot of money to be made in that sector. We in Australia have awesome potential to capitalise on it, we have plenty of wind, land, sunshine and uranium as well as the know how. Burning coal is a dirty way to make electricity. We can do better and we should, but we also make lots of money from selling coal hence the big conflict of interest. Climate change is a global issue, being insular and small minded considering australia only is a poor way to go thinking about it.

I agree with you in that we shouldn't be pushing industry away, instead we should be investing in methods of cheap renewable energy production