Maiy, perhaps you need a new drinking game - one designed for suggesting that climate change is real on online opinion. A shot for every denialist response within 30 minutes. A shot for every claim that the climate has always been changing. A shot for we're not warming, another for climate change science is a religion and maybe another one just to anaesthetise yourself to a community of fanatics who turn away from science in order to have a scientific opinion. I might go have a shot now too. This site reminds me of films of the abandoned undergrounds of London or New York, inhabited with people who have spent far far too long in the dark.

@Amicus: I think 1998 is well recognized as being very hot due to an El Nino event,

Yes indeed. Well that is the AGW supporters line anyway. It is their explanation for why we haven't had a year hotter than 1998 so far. I am glad to see you in agreement with them for a change.

I trust you understand El Nino can't be the explanation for 1998 being the hottest year in modern records, as they have been occurring for longer than we have had records.

@Curmudgeon: when I said that the economic case for the CPRS was dodgy I was refering to the case with the assumption that it would have made a difference. The economic case for cutting emissions always required both extreme assumptions and playing fast and loose with the time value of money. The Stern report...

I misunderstood you then. I though you were saying the CPRS would not reduce emissions. There is a fair amount of evidence it would. As for the assumptions made in the Stern report, there is a good description of them on Wikipedia. They seemed reasonable to me, and I gather most economists think that too. By some weird coincidence, the people who do complain loudest about Stern's valuation of money in the future are also the ones who loudly express their views against AGW.

@rpg: whatever that cost since this fallacy that we can change things, because we want to, is just that, fantasy.

Nah rpg, that's dead wrong. A CPRS would reduce our CO2 emissions, for better or for worse. That we can change, if we choose to. Not that we will get much choice about it. All sources fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) will peak this century, possibly within the next 40 years. When that happens, whether we choose it or not, our CO2 emissions will drop. Thus a CPRS would help prepare us for that, too. As Taswegian pointed out, that is no bad thing.

Amicus says "rstuart - I think 1998 is well recognized as being very hot due to an El Nino event, which I'm pretty sure we can't actually be blamed for (yet). Same as we're in now and why the east of Canada was warm during the Winter Olympics recently while the USA was freezing." By implication and stated time and time again by nay sayers that the temperatures have not risen since 1998.

As usual absolute non scientific rubbish from Amicus and Co; the following chart (you need to go to the site as it won't render in OLO unfortunately)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif

This is unmodified, "non-dodgy" data from Nasa satellites (YES WE KNOW THEY ARE PART OF THE GLOBAL CONSPIRACY)and it shows without any doubt that temperatures HAVE risen since 1998 and continue to do so...notwithstanding a small drop in the rate of rise in 2008 (there was still a rise), the rate is resuming its trajectory. If you doubt this data there are numerous other unrelated charts showing the same trends.

Of course we go round in endless circles like the DoDo bird in the vacuous argument that climate changes; yes it does but not in a 50 year cycle! The science IS well and truly settled on man's contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere and that CO2 increases warming but hey, don't let facts get in the way of a rabid rebuttal.

It is sad that by the time it really is self evident that some will be able to say to many OLO contributors "told you so"...but there will be little comfort in doing so.

I am reminded of the Phantom of the Opera reprise "past the point of no return..." so perhaps we are all wasting our breath!

@next: Spot on. No wonder I'm a bit tiddly.

<burp>

Peter King, what on earth are you on about?

rstuart said "If we get another 1998, and that is looking statistically more likely as time goes on, it will be on again'

amicus said "I think 1998 is well recognized as being very hot due to an El Nino event"

Where did either of them say that there hasn't been a hotter year since?

You are reading things into a simple statement and response ..

calm down

How do you get to "By implication and stated time and time again by nay sayers that the temperatures have not risen since 1998."

What implication?

"As usual absolute non scientific rubbish from Amicus and Co" how do you work out Amicus was trying to be scientific. he just said it was hot year, that's all - jeez you guys will wind up anything into a really good conspiracy won't you?

mate, you're making things up as you go, and inventing things that simply aren't there - it was just a simple conversation, and you've gone off on a tangent.

Who said climate changes in a 50 year cycle? Certainly neither of them in that exchange.

I agree that the climate changes, and if there is any contribution from man, it's not proved yet that's it's CO2, so I don't want the bejesus taxed out of me for that (CO2 reduction) and we should be using our funds to adapt to the changing climate.

"Of course we go round in endless circles like the DoDo bird", yep, lost the plot, I'd recommend a Bex and a lie down.

The allusion to drama from you, is apt.

The author does not do justice to the political science and law disciplines, nor to her role as youth ambassador.
Science disciplines call for truth and integrity, not false propagandising. The law discipline works with integrity only when it is based on truthful evidence.
The author fails on both counts, by adopting warmist ideology that has been proved to be essentially false. Her call for action on climate change is based on false grounds, and consequently is against the national interest.
She is doing immense damage in her role as youth ambassador, by brainwashing the young with warmist propaganda.