Cliff Ollier is a scientist of high repute. His work is based on data and, yes, peer-reviewed articles. But I am sure that he would not claim that what he has set out is the end of it. There might be more data tomorrow.

There is in fact an extraordinary amount of data out there on just the single issue of sea-level rise. And the data do not all point in the one direction. We tend to point to the data that we like (I don't mean Cliff), and wave those at our opponents. They pick other data and return the compliment.

It is for that reason that I cannot accept that the 'science is settled' or that we need to get on with action 'to combat climate change', 'now'. We need a lot more knowledge and real, civil, serious debate between climate scientists and the rest of us.

Anyone who would like to see what such a debate might look like should go to Judith Curry's blog 'Climate etc', which has in a month scored an enormous audience interested in just such a discussion.

Thanks Professor Cliff Ollier for a little sanity. Unfortunately Green religion now has to much money at stake even know their lies and fear mongering is obvious to anyone who really wants to know.

Don -"We need a lot more knowledge and real, civil, serious debate between climate scientists and the rest of us."

Don, I don't believe a civil and serious debate can occur, because climate alarmist scientists are not primarily driven by science or are disinterested in the fact that pseuodoscience, bias or data tampering is rife. Some are well meaning but with a blind faith in institutions like the UN IPCC while others are simply self interested and willing to forsake scientific truth for personal gain.

While this should be a battle of ideas, it is not. Its a battle between science and a corrupt ideologically driven a self-promoting group who have swayed many legitimate scientists and directed the flow of funding away from real discussion and rewarded ideological purity.

If people doubt this, they should examine Julia Gillard's 'committee' to discuss the Carbon Tax issue - which can only be joined by the climate believers, thus ruling our any recognition that there may be another side to this story.

There must be global warming we need carbon taxes to feed the new derivative market and keep us all in poverty.

Professor Cliff Ollier has presented us with a careful analysis of the empirical data on sea level measurements. Clearly his paper does not support the ‘dangerous’ climate warming or climate change hypothesis.

Ludwig uses the so called “precautionary principle” to claim that we may be threated to use his words by, “humungus (sic) potential consequences.” The more one reads and learns about climate change, severe and devastating effects appear to be more and more unlikely. Nobody denies that carbon dioxide can absorb infra- red radiation and lead to some atmospheric warming. However the relation between absorption and atmospheric concentration is logarithmic. Thus it has indeed been suggested that any increase in atmospheric CO2 would have a miniscule effect.

To Ludwig and his colleagues, I assert that the evidence for dangerous climate change is flimsy in the extreme. I further assert that the economic and social cost of implementing -a carbon tax or an emission trading scheme, or a large scale switch to renewable energy sources - is far in excess of any reasonable and foreseeable danger from climate change.

Oh dear, I wonder how Cliff Ollier – is going to feel when a large chunk of the Greenland Icecap; slide off into the sea and raises sea levels by a few meters?
Yes the Arctic is a bit warmer Cliff. It may have escaped your notice but the Arctic Ocean has a whole lot less ice than it used to have. No this is not a plot by those devious global warmers, it is there for anyone who wants to take a ship or boat through what was impassable waters only a few years ago.
Now it could be that as the ice melts and disappears, the dark water gets a bit hotter than the white ice was. Could this possibly be a reason?
Oh well, time will tell. If you find yourself paddling about in the ground floor of your house in a canoe one day, you will know you were wrong.