qanda

I'm afraid I can only see your outright rejection of certain internet information and blind acceptance of other as simple bias. Now you are even rejecting a fellow pro-AGW person's viewpoint.

I don't know why you need more and more evidence for you own ideas but anyway here is a quote from Greenpeace Australia. Its even more extreme and uses the words "endless Drought"

"Australia is the world's driest inhabited continent. Every day we suffer the worsening effects of climate change, like endless drought and weather extremes"

https://www.greenpeace.org.au/secure/appeal/climate.php

I can hardly believe that you are now saying that pro-AGW lobby never believed that Australia was in a worsening drought. The hypocrisy is mind-blowing. You don't remember pro-AGW politicians using AGW as a reason to build desalination plants and restrict water usage? A very convenient amnesia for sure.

I also noticed you assert yourself to be an expert yet you avoided refuting the argument that a cooling earth leads to drier planet than a warming earth. This is one of the areas where the Global Warming hypothesis falls down and your evasion suggests you know this.

In relation to the list http://www.iigcc.org/membership.aspx which you claim to be a "small" list, they are just the members of ONE group in one part of the world. I guess you may not have noticed many of them are pension funds and Churches and govt organisations who are investing peoples money without investors consent?

Carbon is NOT a pollutant. Carbon Dioxide is NOT a pollutant. Prior to this lunacy, Carbon was called "the building block of life". If carbon itself were a pollutant, all life would be pollution as would every breath you exhale. Some forms of carbon compounds can contribute to pollution as can some forms of sulphur, nitrogen, hydrogen and numerous other gases. The reason AGW proponents single out carbon only is that it is easier to tax the developed world as some carbon compounds are the common byproduct of industrialisation and the march of the developed world can be halted.

(Chinese and Arab carbon is apparently OK for the environment!).

qanda

Yet more information:

Ecosanity, a pro AGW lobby talking about the "permanent drought".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQ5FmLX-zvo

Has your amnesia lifted yet?

Atman, sorry mate, but according to philosophical reasoning man truly began to destroy the earth with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

Just as our young ones prefer to tamper with exhaust sytems mainly to heaer and feel the thrill of engine power, so future motorisation will eventually denude the earth enough to ruin its future.

Though appreciating the natural gift of fingers, young people should appreciate more the gift of the cupped hand, not like the monkey whose hands are nowhere near so cupped, which shows that as we become more advanced the cupped hand must remind us that whether from God or the Great Architect, the Cupped Hand must mean that we are here mostly to give not to happily destroy.

Certainly one does not have to be a Christian to realise that the Sermon on the Mount, does also truly
denote the goodness and generosity of the Cupped Hand.

Maybe Nelson Mandela could explain the above better than myself.

Atman

I reject AGW ‘alarmism’ – always have, always will. That's not to say AGW isn't alarming, it is.

>> I can hardly believe that you are now saying that pro-AGW lobby never believed that Australia was in a worsening drought. The hypocrisy is mind-blowing. <<

Your hypocrisy is mind-blowing, show me where I said the "pro-AGW lobby never believed that Australia was in a worsening drought.” You want to keep putting your words in my mouth (as others are wont to do) - deceptive at best, mendacious at worst.

Btw, when someone prefaces a statement with ‘like’ – as in “like endless drought” – the statement becomes a metaphor.

>> I also noticed you assert yourself to be an expert yet you avoided refuting the argument that a cooling earth leads to drier planet than a warming earth. This is one of the areas where the Global Warming hypothesis falls down and your evasion suggests you know this. <<

Um, Atman ... nothing to refute, a cooling Earth does lead to a drier planet.

The corollary: a warming Earth leads to a wetter planet. I have said this numerous times in numerous posts.

If you add energy to a system at a rate more than it can absorb or release, it heats up. The Earth System is as complex as it is dynamic - some regions will be better off, some worse. One thing is certain, at the current rate of adding energy into the system; it will react accordingly, it is. The Re-Insurance companies are suffering gastro as a result.

Pension fund stuff – yes, I noticed.

Your chemistry lecture, thanks. Carbon is “the building block of life” – and we should treat it with respect.

No CO2, the planet would be like a snow-ball.
Too much, it would be like hell on Earth.

Scientists single out ‘carbon’ because of the problems associated with releasing too much energy into the atmosphere at a rate greater than the oceans, atmosphere and terrestrial biosphere can absorb. What political ideologues do is another matter.

Cont’d Atman

Cont’d Atman

And to your last bracketed snarky remark about Arab and Chinese carbon – no, it’s not ok for the environment. A GHG molecule is not bigoted or rascist, the troposphere covers the whole globe.

Betcha didn’t know China is doing far more than the US in terms of mitigation measures. Why? They have most to lose, both literally and figuratively.

Ecosanity youtube link, thanks. As I’ve said, alarming messages. Perhaps you can proffer a plan on tackling ‘water’ issues, be they in our ‘food bowl’, in a high density population center, or in a region where average yearly rainfall is reducing. Have you seen satellite data and images on water loss in Australia?

qanda

So you do agree that a warming planet should not necessarily lead to drought in Australia. Or do you? It is difficult to pin you down on this one.

Sorry but I can't buy your metaphor explanation. In fact I think its quite lame. "Like" in this context means 'such as' not 'similar to'. Here is the complete quote.

Greenpeace>>"Australia is the world's driest inhabited continent. Every day we suffer the worsening effects of climate change, like endless drought and weather extremes."

If "endless drought" was a metaphor (which it clearly isn't) you seem to be suggesting its a metaphor for an non-endless drought?!

So by denying you are part of the pro-AGW lobby, that you are not an alarmist, where exactly do you stand? You apparently disagree with Greenpeace and EcoSanity.

In response to your suggestion I "proffer an plan on tackling water issues" I'll leave the solution to the water 'experts'.I believe you put yourself in this category.

However, in relation to Australian water problems; they are not new. Drought has existed in Australia for thousands of years so why is it a new problem or a problem of latter times? It is clearly unrelated to Global Warming even if such a thing existed.

Australia's drought prone "food bowl" is a geographic and climatic fact. We are dependent upon many areas which have only ever been marginal farming areas. You would be aware there has been record rainfall recently in the central part of the continent. Australia has a highly variable pattern. The above Greenpeace quote stupidly links droughts to 'climate change' as if the climate had been static before man intervened. Do you support his concept?

In relation to your praise for China's emissions control policy, do you support the IPCC recommendation not to restrict China's emissions?