"Leo Lane" and "Peter Hume" (and a few others):

I know it is unlikely either (or any) will reading this post, for this issue has been extensively thrashed and trashed already, beyond all recognition; but here goes!

It has been said "even the greatest fool can pose a question which even the greatest minds cannot answer".

Such is my considered response to your "denial" that there may be any legitimacy to arguments that:
i) There is a "greenhouse effect", and it is this effect which a) enables the planet to remain warmer, and b) to be protected from destructive levels of cosmic radiation,
ii) That there are gasses which contribute to the "greenhouse effect", and these have been identified by science, individually and in concentration level,
iii) That human activity has contributed to higher concentrations of many of these gasses, causing a measurable increase in the intensity of the greenhouse effect,
iv) That some greenhouse gasses cause destruction of the ozone layer - which layer provides significant protection to the earth from harmful radiation,
v) That action to reduce, if not eliminate, chlorofluorocarbon emissions from human activity (eg Freon gas, spray cans), has enabled slow repair of the ozone layer, and reduced the intensity of the greenhouse effect,
vi) That the earth's ice-caps and glaciers have been receding in recent history at what has been described as "at an alarming rate",
vii) That increases in sea temperatures, and in the level of carbonic acid (from dissolved CO2) in the earth's oceans, are now (not years hence) threatening the ability of various marine species to propagate, and hence survive, at threat to the whole ecosystem,

You may pontificate that you have not seen "absolute proof", that 'we' didn't do it, that it isn't really "significant'. But protest as you may, and argue as you will as to whether it is all "natural" or man-made, it is there, it is happening, and you ignore it at your peril.

God willing, it will be at your peril and no-one else's.

Saltpetre,

You post this:
"vii) That increases in sea temperatures, and in the level of carbonic acid (from dissolved CO2) in the earth's oceans, are now (not years hence) threatening the ability of various marine species to propagate, and hence survive, at threat to the whole ecosystem,".

Increased sea temperature and CO2 and carbonic acid levels appear to me to involve ETS and carbon tax and carbon price propaganda. I agree climate is being changed by human activity but I do not agree the cause is CO2.

It's good to see you still on this thread and perhaps you might help draw attention of Tony Abbott to find a straight answer to the following question. His response or not may show leadership potential.

As ocean of this planet produces over 50 percent of oxygen, has natural ocean algae and sewage nutrient pollution proliferated ocean algae been measured and taken into account in AGW, IPCC and sea temperature increase science?

As for marine species failing to propagate, I find starvation is the most likely cause. Whale calf abandonment and unprecedented (low population) mass mortality of sea birds is occurring. Mammals are known to abandon their youg due to starvation. Fish stocks are failing to regenerate once fishing has stopped. Estuary seagrass food web nurseries are devastated or destroyed due to sewage nutrient pollution proliferated algae smothering seagrass.

Even worse is occurring. Indigenous seafood dependent island people are experiencing protein deficiency malnutrition and disease and early death including a 69 percent increase in anaemia related maternal mortality, not due to CO2.

Yet PM's and opposition leaders appear obsessed with CO2 revenue 'debate' while sewage nutrient pollution and impact and consequences seem to be un-noticed.

JF Aus,

I'm not peddling the carbon tax and ETS. I don't believe either would do anything for the climate or the environment. I think it's just Labor spin-doctoring to stay in power - a tax-grab to enable them to redistribute some of industries' wealth. It's just a push for votes.

I'm hoping sense will prevail, that the Oz public will wake up to Labor's BS and give them a sound thrashing at the next Fed election. I just hope we won't have been lumbered with these ridiculous taxes in the meantime.

You are right about ocean pollution and fertiliser run-off being major concerns. The algal phytoplankton is the foundation of life in the oceans, and the lungs of the earth, producing far more oxygen than all on-shore photosynthesis. It is also the food source of the zoo-plankton, which feeds a huge portion of marine life, including the great whales.

What I was getting at is CO2 is also polluting the ocean, and the carbonic acid levels and measured rise in ocean temperatures are threatening the viability of the zoo-plankton, and thus virtually all marine life. Can you imagine the impact also if the lungs of the earth are compromised? I believe you do.

Hence, we have a double dilemma - pollution and global greenhouse. Increasing demand for food is driving increased fertiliser use, causing pollution of both the oceans and the atmosphere.

Of course, as you have pointed out, it is not just the oceans, but all the bays, estuaries, mangroves and inland waterways. These in- and on-shore waterways are the breeding grounds for vast numbers of aquatic and marine species, and of course are a major food source.

We ignore these factors at risk of life on earth as we know it. You said it. I hope someone is listening.

Carbon tax, ETS, will do nothing. We need new govt, particularly as The Greens have forgotten their primary role - which is to tend to the environment.

>> Carbon tax, ETS, will do nothing. We need new govt, particularly as The Greens have forgotten their primary role - which is to tend to the environment. <<

Corollary: An even more right-wing neo-conservative Liberal government will do a better job for the environment - even more under their 'tea-partyish' leadership team.

Yeah, right.

Saltpetre
You are three steps away from a logically competent argument, for the following reasons.

1.
I asked for real-world evidence, and you have neither provided nor referred to any.
You have merely *repeated* the original orthodox belief system which is in issue. So the deep structure of your “proof” is this: “It is because it is.”

That is a logical fallacy.

To talk of my “denial” assumes you have proved your case, and I am denying it. But you haven’t proved your case in the first place. Assuming what is in issue: the same logical fallacy repeated.

I’m not asking for “absolute” proof, I’m asking for real-world evidence proving your theory. But all you’ve got is *assuming* it, and then relying for this unevidenced *belief* on vested interests who claim to prove it by computer models (guesses) which assume the same thing.

The same logical fallacy again.

It’s not just you doing it. The entire global warming orthodoxy uses exactly the same intellectual method, and that’s the problem. It’s not only not scientific, it’s not even logical.

2.
You have again ASSUMED, not proved that the negative consequences of any warming would outweigh the positive consequences.

The mere fact that something may adversely affect “marine species” is no proof. A farmer ploughing his field adversely affects other species, who are rivals for the same resources. So what? The fact that the natural world always changes doesn’t mean we face a crisis, nor that the negative consequences outweigh the positive.

3.
Even if you had shown negative consequences on balance, which you haven’t, you haven’t shown how government is going to be able to be an improvement *when all positive and negative consequences are taken into account*.

And be honest. You wouldn’t have the faintest idea what the positive and negative consequences are in terms of ecological changes, from a few degrees, for entire continents, nor even how you could know.

When asked for evidence and reason, you and the entire global warming orthodoxy have nothing to respond with but a) circular and b) ad hominem argument.

That's it!