Re the graph on page 1, where does it come from? Does it have anything to do with the NOAA?

what exactly does 6th order fitted trend mean? If it means fitting a 6th order polynomial, then has anyone in NOAA (or any serious mathematical modeller anywhere else) ever actually done this to real world data? (What does the green curve look like if you extend it a few years into the future?)

Vic, firstly do you agree that the weather around the planet is getting wilder, with all sorts of extreme record-breaking events having happened in recent years?

You seem to accept this much.

Secondly, do you agree that man has made huge changes to the global atmospheric system, not only by very significantly increasing CO2 output, but by adding all sorts of other stuff to the atmosphere? And that we have greatly changed the reflectivity of the earth’s surface, the evapotranspiration regime and the cloud cover (think jet airline contrails as just one factor therein)?

Thirdly, do you agree that the weather system is inherently highly unpredictable…. and that logic would suggest that only relatively small changes in the energy input for the whole planetary system could increase the magnitude of all manner of weather phenomena and increase the unpredictability of where and how they might eventuate?

Fourthly, do think that there could be a connection between the now quite frequent extreme cold events that we are seeing in the high northern latitudes and an overall increase in energy in the planetary climate system? These events are simply arctic conditions brought further south than has happened before, are they not? And the only way that this can happen is via an increase in overall energy in the whole system.

continued

I just don’t get; why would someone such as yourself, a man of the land, in a wonderful part of the world… which is has always been of fairly low rainfall and is now clearly suffering a decline in rainfall, be so adamant that AGW or the CO2 component therein is not significant?

I can understand this view coming from those with vested-interests in continuing with business as usual. But I would have thought that you would be a sceptic rather than denialist. And all sceptics should be erring on the side of caution, and basically looking at the whole AGW thing in just the same way as those who are convinced that it is real and of high significance.

Besides – there are other enormous reasons for reining in CO2 emissions. Not least the absolute imperative (or what SHOULD be the absolute imperative) to wean ourselves off of our addiction to oil in the first instance and coal and gas with slightly less urgency and to develop a renewable sustainable energy regime.

Luwig asks:

"Vic, firstly do you agree that the weather around the planet is getting wilder, with all sorts of extreme record-breaking events having happened in recent years?"

Actually extreme weather is not getting worse, even Warren Buffett thinks not:

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/03/warren-buffett-says-climate-change-made-no-difference-to-insurance-on-catastrophes/#comments

More scientifically there is strong evidence that IF AGW existed it would decrease extreme weather such as storms, cyclones and hurricanes:

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/search?q=warming+storm+activity

Professor Muller explains:

"less difference in the temperatures between the poles and the equator caused by global warming "could ­reduce the kind of hot-cold weather fronts that generate severe storms''."

So, in fact LESS extreme weather is evidence for warming!

Even the IPCC grudgingly concedes less extreme weather in many forms:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/03/pielke-jr-agrees-extreme-weather-to-climate-connection-is-a-dead-issue/

This is strange; the narrative of AGW is such that anything beneficial from it is ignored because it would interfere with the catastrophic context.

when you worship the creation rather than the Creator you end up with a deluded mind. None more evident than those who have adopted the gw religion. Besides the theft from the public purse the indoctrination of the kids is appalling.

Have to agree with Ludwig on this one.
Co2 per se, does not cause climate change, and no rational person or scientist is claiming that it is!?
Co2 causes a greenhouse effect, and it is this effect that is thought to be ushering in climate change.
Our average ambient temperatures have risen by 0.9C over the course of the last century, and there are discernible changes that include wild weather, rainfall and drought, with no comparison in living memory.
Moreover, some ocean currents have risen as much as 2C.
We have unprecedented, ice melts, flood events and drought, and ample evidence for those with eyes to see that ocean acidification, is an ongoing event, with worrying implications!
I don't expect my house to burn down any time soon, but still, the precautionary principle, demands I insure against that and other even more unlikely possibilities.
If there were anything but economic upsides, that come with rational change, I might have some sympathy with the Author's views?
But with things like cheaper than coal thorium, algae sourced alternative fuels, and converting our waste to endlessly sustainable methane; and then using that methane to power and heat/cool all manner of things, [via ceramic fuel cells that produce mostly water vapor and free hot water,] including our homes and residential apartment blocks, for less than quarter of what we are forced to shell out now; available to us, I have none whatsoever!
Rhrosty.