IMO, compensation should only be payable once the earth's natural variation from today's temperature is breached, i.e. 2 degrees. My link is not to some Panamanians I believe need compensation, only to show the kind of issues the first world could be compensated for due to a failure of the first world to meet the 2 degree cap.

That's not one world government (which I do not advocate), that's just fairness.

How will lefties, or righties for that matter, be "selling" out if they they pay compensation for doing dirty deeds to people of the first world? Has the first world some right to physically impact upon the third without compensating it?

Luci your ideas do sound fair. There is just one problem. You start from the idea that CO2, man made or natural causes global warming.

Mate they have now spent billions trying to find even a single atom of proof of that, & found nothing. The only place they can find any is in their computer models, their computer games for bigger boys.

That is of course, because no proof exists. It can't because CO2 has such a minor effect, that it is overpowered by other forces. Recent research has proven that water vapor & the cloud it forms negate any warming from CO2.

I wonder what we have to do to get people like you to stop believing everything your masters tell you, & get you applying your logic right at the start of your reasoning.

You're back Hasbeen, and without the goods requested, I see.

"Recent research has proven that water vapor & the cloud it forms negate any warming from CO2."

Hazza, use the word "prove" advisedly when talking science, "supported" is the word used. OK where is this recent research, in what publication and, is the it peer reviewed? Please don't tell me the warmists won't publish it because it goes against some religion. A link would be nice.

If you won't accept what your eyes see at http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html then read about what it means at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5314592.stm
http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/index.php?id=40&tx_naksciinterview_pi1%5BshowUid%5D=643&cHash=7faa6cce3f&table=tx_naksciinterview_interviews
http://www.esf.org/media-centre/ext-single-news/article/ten-questions-with-descartes-prize-laureate-dr-eric-wolff-british-antarctic-survey-member-of-the.html
or pick out what you like at http://www.zoominfo.com/p/Eric-Wolff/148342670

The game's up, Hazza, so just tell us you don't give a toss about our descenadants and move on to politics and current affairs threads, where the opinion of the uninformed is as valid as any other.

The amount of plant life in polar waters would surely influence CO2 levels trapped in relevant ice when that ice formed.

Is abundance or not of algae plant matter being taken into account in studies of CO2 trapped in ancient and modern polar ice deposits?

Impact of past and present plant matter in oceans should surely be measured and assessed in AGW science. What do the Greens say about that?

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2012/june/arctic-algal-blooms-060712.html

JF Aus, from your cited article link:

"One piece of seemingly good news is an increase in the Arctic's ability to sequester carbon. As the Arctic Ocean's productivity increases, so should its carbon capture rate. But, Arrigo says, the effect is unlikely to make much difference."

"Even if the amount of CO2 going into the Arctic Ocean doubled, it's a blip on a global scale..."

If you have specific questions you cannot find answered, or proposals you believe debunk/falsify the the hypotheses behind AGW, try http://climaterapidresponse.org/, or, many claims are countered at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Please take the time to read everything you can to understand that humankind is entering very dangerous territory if it does not act decisively. Each of us has a duty to our descendants to do what we can , even if that is only to convince others that there is a problem. Do not expect others to lead.

Luciferace and all,

Empirical evidence categorically indicates humankind is not entering very dangerous territory, it is already there, humankind is already in very very dangerous territory.

The danger is that a situation of already seriously devastated land and now ocean natural food supply already exits, right now. Unaffordable agricultural food exacerbates the situation, so too does increasing cost of dwindling fish-linked fertilizer and essential protein for feedmeal, including for aquaculture.

You say take time to read everything and therein is a serious problem. Much of what is needed to be known is not yet written, especially concerning phenomena in ocean that covers 72% of this planet. Data is lacking. Nobody counted fish in the beginning and no one can count fish that remain. Political demand for scientific evidence/data on the subject is preposterous.

Empirical evidence of substance however indicates, “never mind duty to our descendants”, it’s duty to each other and the world in which we live right now, to keep it all alive right now without more war and loss of peace right now, that should be foremost in thinking instead of nonsense about CO2 and associated trading schemes.

Spurious claims about CO2 are already knocking-on via virtual brainwashing. For example religion-like CO2 believers are failing to properly consider and debate whetheror not there could really be another or more major cause of AGW.
Take you own post above for example.
With respect, you see algae under ice as being suitable for CO2 sequestration, and you fail to comment on warmth in that algae in an area where ice is known to be melting more than usual.
And algae is known to have warmth retaining capabilities, yet the IPCC has not measured it.

Evidence about the state of the ocean and seafood sustainability categorically indicates it is too late for conservation, there is need to sustain, to be pro-active with urgent solutions. Just look at lost coral (without mention of GBR loss).
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/coastal/programs/coral/threats.htm


I expect the government leader to lead.