agnotsic "These outcomes might be avoided, or at least slowed down, if we reduced CO2

Really? So if we reduced the CO2 output by how much .. by when will it reduce the rise by what amount?

If you can't answer that then you're just an alarmist in most people's opinions. No science, just more alarmist blather, same old, same old, world is ending unless we DO something, anything. (and of course lashing out at disagreers, that's the real issue isn't it, we disagree)

The reality is if we did it all as you wish in Australia, it would change nothing at all .. getting the top 20 countries to reduce CO2 output will not happen, so the sooner you realize that and stop fantasizing the better.

We need effort into adapting not trying to stop the sky falling, it will fall, so accept it and build a better habitat.

The attract to scold people and not deny that you have to adapt is just so much easier than stopping the huge investment in climate science and investing in engineering works to mitigate the effects.

"it prompts the same old response from the same old deniers spouting the same old rubbish" I agree, you need to let go of the same old doom saying hysterical world is ending crap and move on to solutions .. solutions that have a chance, and reducing CO2 in Australia by taxing and compensating, is just redistributing wealth.

China talks a good fight, but is completing 2 coal fired power stations per week .. so how about accepting the reality, stop denying the reality, that adaption is needed.

the "fight" to reduce CO2 before it is too late, is over .. you lost

NOTE...re agnostic quote

""She reports that rising sea temperature is already melting clathrate (an ice like substance) on the Arctic seabed off Eastern Siberia and releasing methane*!*!*"":

get it folks?

methane NOT CARBEN DIOXIDE
we are TAXING CO2
but NOT METHANE..!

" - a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.""..!*!*!

GET IT?

""Presently*, over 1 million tonnes of methane
is entering the atmosphere per annum from this source.""

so reducing co2
AINT GOING TO DO NUTHIN..!

get it?

""That helps explain why polar warming
is occurring more rapidly than in the rest of the world and why we should keep an eye on the rising rate at which the Greenland Ice Sheet is melting""

egsactly

ALSO lets mention the 40,000 gas wells from COAL SEAM GAS
[in auastralia alone]...all leaking METHANE..!

and lest we forget home composting GENERATES METHANE TOO.

yes so too does mining coal
and many other things

BUT THEY ARNT..[wont] be taxed

get it?

taxing co2
AINT GOING TO CHANGE NUTHIN..!

[then there is nitrous oxide from farming
300 times worse that carbon
TWICE AS bad as methane

they regester as lower numbers
BUT their AFFECT ...is MUCH GREATER

get it?

Round and round in circles, for months.

MarcH:
You accuse Andrew Glikson of not being a climate scientist. Well, he is and he isn't. He's a paleogeologist but we need such scientists to tell us what happened in climates of hundreds of thousands of years ago so we can compare. If you dismiss him then you can forget Ian Plimer as well who is a geologist with no peer-reviewed climate science papers under his belt as far as I'm aware, unlike Glikson who has.

Oh dear, RPG,

Your child is bleeding at a rate that would exsanguinate in five minutes. Extensive and expensive first aid *might* slow this adequately, or *merely* reduce the brain damage that results by an unpredictable amount (given that murphy's law applies). You then demand that no first aid be applied if it costs you or the taxpayer generally *anyting* unless conclusive proof of specific rather than general outcomes is immediately forthcoming.

Jolly good. I would for one let you bear this burden.

Unfortunately, first principles indicate that additional heat is necessarily being trapped in the atmosphere/ocean/ice system. once thermal buffers are exhausted, overt temperature rises will accelerate.

This a problem affecting all of us, and correction however partial may well be something you thank us for later.

Agnostic of mittagong:

My suggestion is move to higher ground and *don't* demand action. Capitalise on (hem hem) rising values.

If the denialists complain later, we can explain the concept of "market value" to them all over again.

Rusty

popnperish...If Glickson has PEER reviewed papers in Respected Climate science journals?-list them. He appears to have a lot of opinion pieces spouting climate alarm here and on the ABC but nothing substantive. As credible as you point out as Ian Plimer.