Best get the complete picture.
Fisheries in the Philippines have already been reduced more than 50 percent and the reduction is not due to CO2.
Over 90 percent of big fish worldwide have already gone and independent evidence of substance indicates the cause is not due to over fishing.

In alternative food production of course agriculture must be supported but where is the sense in taking down and burning tropical rain forest to provide soil and barely enough fertilizer for one-in-ten year food crops?
Tropical soil is usually so poor in essential nutrients that cattle imported into Indonesia become too malnourished to breed.
Smoke from the burning even reaches Malaysia causing eye and breathing irritation.

Science into effects on climate should be complete science and not just science about CO2 promoting sale of alternative energy. Meteorology should include biology.

It appears photosynthesis-linked warmth in unprecedented sewage proliferated ocean algae plant matter has not yet been measured and assessed in AGW-IPCC science, even in the recent IPCC study and report, therefore that science must be considered incomplete. There is reasonable doubt.

It is the incomplete science that is actually already knocking on. Lack of debate and attention is resulting in damage to ocean food web nursery ecosystems continuing unchecked, that damage is causing damage, compounding.

Algae has warmth retaining capabilities.

Why is ocean algae plant matter not being assessed in IPCC science?

Kelly, imagine if someone wrote an article saying “The latest Department of Defence report states that the levels of democracy and social justice have all increased as a result of America’s foreign military adventurism", and then, without ever critically examining that statement to check whether or not it’s true, assumed this as a premise for an argument in favour of more military action.

What would you think of that process of reasoning?

Because that’s what you’ve done.

The IPCC is not a scientific body. It’s a political body charged with propagating the belief in catastrophic global warming. It has no charter to be balanced or reasonable in considering the issues; only to assume it’s true and propagate the cause.

You obviously haven’t been following the scientific debate. At no stage have you checked the data. The warmists have resoundingly lost. It’s they who are the “denialists” now. ALL the IPCC’s predictions about global warming have turned out to be wrong. Got that? Wrong. Unsupported by empirical measurement and their own theory. Cost: $79 billion.

You belittle yourself by uncritically regurgitating such clap-trap, and as a pretext for forced redistributions of income – well, you’re just proving the realists' case.

Actually you have the same fallacious premise twice over. You assume that taking millions of dollars from Australian taxpayers by threatening to imprison them (didn’t mention that bit, did you?), and pouring it down foreign bureacracies creates net social benefits. Firstly then you must approve the same reasoning when used by the American and Australian imperialists to justify their military adventurism that you disapprove of. Secondly, how can it be anything other than arbitrary if you don’t take into account the negatives? How do you know that voluntary wealth transfers wouldn’t have produced a better result? How do you know that the Philippines isn’t made worse off by the increase in parasitic bureaucrats? If your reasoning is correct, then why shouldn’t all property be taken by the government and distributed in its arbitrary discretion? Your positions on domestic and foreign policy are completely self-contradictory, and your economic reasoning is economically illiterate.

[Deleted for abuse.]

There are liberals out there who believe in global warming, and argue we need to do something, albeit difficult as it is given our obsession with economic growth.

Saw one last night: mayor at Bondi Beach.

Me also think global warming and human involvement real, although no one is ever going to tell us precisely what extent change will happen.

Could be that only the rich nations will be able to afford alterations to infrastructure needed.

But, I can safely predict, trillions of $US on such infrastructure will be spent around the world. The worse the problem gets, the more that will need to be spent.

The deniers will never win with this debate. All they can do is highlight where predictions are wrong.

JKJ,
I enjoy reading your posts as most are thought provoking and as such are of value.
Your post on this topic does not quite fit this category, it comes across more as climate cant and nowhere near your usual standard.
SD

a 2 degree increase by the 2030s? Kellie tell the authors of that report they're dreaming. As is now widely acknowledged, temperatures haven't moved much at all in the past 15 years and a range of excuses have been produced for this pause. So 2 degrees in the next 15-20 is being really hopeful.. I was under the impression that was mid-range for the IPCC by the end of the century, but I stand to be corrected.

Kellie you should mix your alarmism with the occasional does of reality. You will find it'll go further..