Squeers, not even close to an answer. I asked, "why do you think these announcements have been made? After all we started out with AGW to “reduce carbon emissions”, now one of the main players is going to burn dirty coal? Please explain?"

Stop being so obtuse and give us your opinin.

No cause for alarm
Global temperatures are projected rise 3.5 degrees C. over the next 25 years, the International Energy Agency said Tuesday,
Now I have read that if the temperature gets up by this amount, then there probably will not be any life South of Paris and North of Brisbane.
This is a forecast put out by a top body and yet so far I have seen no news headlines on any of the media about this.
I would have thought to get back to the original article that we every reason for alarm.
Yes I know the denialists will come out in droves bleating that it is all diabolical plot and there is no evidence or even that the evidence is the other way but…..
Surely if there is any chance that this report is correct. We should be alarmed?

http://www.google.com.au/#q=Global+temperature+to+rise+3.5+degrees+C.+by+2035:&hl=en&prmd=ivn&ei=7WHfTK7xL43BcaTE2ZcM&start=10&sa=N&fp=cba8a17de49d72a7

Not so, Squeers. Your proposition has no validity.

The current science is that natural cycles govern global warming, and cooling, and the 800 year lag is not relevant. The simple fact is that human emissions have no measurable effect on climate change, no matter how you twist and turn.

The now disproven guess of the IPCC that it was very likely, is the closest the alarmists ever came to proof of any effect by human emissions. The satellite instruments were going to give the proof, according to the IPCC, and they did not.

There is no scientific basis for AGW.

As for lack of will to tackle the non existent problem, why do you think ratbags like the greens are in parliament, if not because people are misled into believing nonsense like AGW?

Now you are showing your ignorance, Ludwig. What science have you discovered that shows human emissions have any measurable effect on climate? Let us have it now, and you will retrieve some of your credibility, which is, at the moment, non existent.

The people who have criticized Professor Ollier have come up with no basis. His article is correct, and no one has shown otherwise.

Geoff Davies not only comes up with no valid criticism, but says:” The West Antarctic sheet is not sitting in a basin, it is grounded below sea level. As it thins it would just float off. So all 7 meters of potential rise is fully available.”

The Southern Hemisphere has shown no warming since 1979.It is virtually impossible for the Antarctic Ice Sheet to melt, and if it did happen it would take a period of centuries. The net balance of ice, right now, is increasing.

Geoff is a committed alarmist, and makes irrelevant comments like this in the hope of misleading people into believing in AGW.

By the way Geoff, you did not come back with any scientific basis for AGW, on any of the occasions you were asked. Would you mind confirming that despite the $100 billion spent on research, there is no such science, and AGW is unproven?

Sarnian. I predict that by 2035, global temperature will have dropped by 4 degrees, and I have the same ability as the IPCC to predict global temperatures: NONE.

The story to which you refer us is based on the proposition that human emissions cause global warming, and we all know that there is no scientific proof of that. We also know that while currently CO2 content in the atmosphere is increasing, the global temperature is falling.

However, on past experience of world temperatures, related to the activity of the sun, it is highly likely that we are entering a prolonged period of cooling.

You say “if there is any chance”. I can tell you without doubt, that there is no chance of establishing a valid scientific basis for the prediction. It is a sick joke.

There is no scientific principle known as the precautionary principle, which you seem to advocate. It is unworkable political nonsense to assert such a thing.

Human beings have no ability to modify world temperatures, by cutting emissions or otherwise.

Dear Spindoc,
Sorry but I'll leave you to figure out whatever your problem is (I'm obtuse?)

In fact, if the dogmatic denialists (check out Leo Lane's last) have nothing intelligent to say, I'll leave you to it.

..Since you folk are so enamoured of conspiracy theories, I thought I'd give you a plausible one to think over...
But it just don't hit the right cords, does it?

'Poststructuralist'? Spare me. Now I *know* you're full of it. Anyone who takes seriously the prolix bullsh!t of w@nkers like Derrida is either a fool or a deceiver.

Which one are you, Squeers?