Oh Leo, what a fool you are, trotting along with your fellow anti-climate change sheep, bleeping the same old bulldust you read in your daily red-top, BAA, BAA, BAA!

I asked you a question once, about what you would say if the world followed your opinion and did nothing to halt or slow down the rise in temperature, and in 50 years time discovered you were wrong, too late to stop a catastrophe, what would you say? You, of course, didn't answer, your kind never do.

And just for the sake of reality, the people of the US did not vote for Trump, they voted for Clinton, by a two and a half million votes, it was a severely undemocratic voting system that got him over the line, a system he called an affront to democracy.

You are a climate fraud supporter, BillyD, so your opinion is that of an ignorant or dishonest person.
You are either ignorant of the fact that there is no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate, or you are aware, but dishonest enough to support the fraud.
If you assert there is any science to show that there is any measurable human effect on climate, then refer us to it.
Fancy an ignoramus like you calling anyone a fool.
We have to be grateful for the system in the U.S., or the criminal ilary might be President elect

Seems like a reasonable enough assessment of the situation to me.
Much better than all of the one-dimensional blather that you will find in the Australian/IPA/Quadrant nexus.
Tony Judt wrote a marvelous truth-telling book titled Ill Fares The Land.
The Land and all of Earthkind will certainly become much more ILL and degraded (possibly even terminally) when Trump and his team take over next year.

The argument for AGW is not built on a single paper but on accumulated evidence. That is its strength. Data are collected from a wide range of separate, independent disciplines and together they build the case that the climate is warming partly as a result of our burning of fossil fuels, and that the warming will continue to increase if measures are not taken to reduce emissions. You describe yourself as a sceptic, a label you imagine dignifies your position, making it appear reasonable and considered. In fact, you are none of these things. You are a denier, and by definition unreasonable; someone who is implacably opposed to evidence however powerful it is said to be. It is an anti-science position which tells us you have neither the will nor the intelligence to understand the issues of this subject.

Now answer my question Leo, what if you are wrong, and it's too late, what will you say? Oops!?

As usual, things are bad but they could be worse, and no doubt will be, as the western world debt bubble collapses...
A pretty interesting article, but no surprises there...
For the sake of world ecological survival, we better hope for economic failure, not more growth, one thing I do agree with. Terrifying thought to think of 400 million Chinese middle class. To be hoped they kill themselves with obesity , which they probably will!

Billyd

Global warming is not a new phenomena.
10k years ago there is clear evidence today, of fifty foot sea level rises, which only took one hundred years to complete. The old shore line is clearly visible at that depth. I spend half my life exploring it!
No argument could be put to suggest it was human motivated.