"Heads I win, tails you lose"

We have a consistent pattern here.

If a new report comes out, saying something that the government doesn't like, then the response is "Oh, but this is untested research" (like, e.g., the Stern Report), or "This is new, and we have to think about it before we can do anything," or "We could not have possibly known before this report came out."

If it turns out that the warnings go back, in essence unchanged, for years, then the response is "You think this is news? This is ancient! We've known about this forever! Go find some news to report you useless partisan hack!!"

Do you think that they know that the two responses are mutually contradictory? Their response to continual warnings of looming problems (I won't say 'disaster' because then erudito and the Lavoisier group would accuse me of scare-mongering) is "This is new, and unproven!", and their response to revelations that the warnings have been pretty consistent for years is "that's boring, old news, of course we knew the whole time, what do you think we are, incompetent?" (Except when they go back a few more decades, and say "They gave different dire predictions thirty years ago, therefore they are wrong now!1! Ha, I've run rings 'round you logically!")

The thing is though, Mr Turnbull, that for those years that your department and your boss (you think he reports to his electorate? HA!) were fully cognisant of the potential for disaster, you were standing up in public, with your bare faces showing, shouting from the rooftops that nothing was wrong, everything was fine, and anyone who said otherwise was probably just a tree-hugging communist. Who eats babies.

Were you all full-of-shit lying opportunistic short-sighted two-faced bastards then, or are you now? Or is it, as is more likely, both?