"The alternative bears no contemplation" DOOM!

Basically what we expect from the alarmists, more alarm, nothing new there.

Yet, no one seems overly concerned, people who make advertisements for Carbon Tax buy beach-side properties in Vanuatu, or jump on planes, after making speeches at pro tax rallies, which produce CO2 AND use fossil fuels, so clearly not alarmed and life goes on.

Activists care less about CO2 than they do about "excess", fossil fuel use and stopping other people being enthusiastic about life, enjoying themselves, and redistributing wealth .. typical class war, and a very hypocritical one at that. I expect true believers, as many claim they are, to be off the grid by now, not using any fossil fuel generated power and have a zero carbon footprint. (no true believer surely would be using filthy computers?)

But of course, like our celebrities, that's just for other people (the stupid ones who listen to shock jocks .. right?).

I mean, typical Australians can't be making decisions to be against something the celebrities and a small noisy minority tell them they shouldn't do, so it must be something else, like .. shock jocks, yes that's it .. shock jocks are convincing over 70% of Australians that paying a great big new tax is not a good idea. (BS detectors no longer work you think? Wrong, they sure do and this carbon tax and it's pitch is pure ALP BS)

Anyway for the rest of us, there will soon be no problem, as soon as we pay a tax, that's it .. job done, Australians can rest easy, knowing the Gillard government is in full control of the world's thermometer.

No need to do anything else, no need to cut back, we can use high octane fuel if we want, get that sports car you always wanted .. and go on enjoying life.

Though I suspect the miserable alarmists will still whine, finding new ways to make their lives miserable and try to do the same to others.

so regardless of Andrew's numbers .. life goes on, happily.

Andrew,

Once again, you deliver your statements without any consideration that there might be other possibilities, and conclude by saying that the 'alternative bears no contemplation'. But surely we are entitled to assess all the evidence, not simply the papers and assertions that you wish us to take notice of.

How do you deal with the uncertainty over measuring whether or not there is any increase in sea-levels, or in the warming of the oceans? You assume that aerosols have been responsible for reducing the effect of GHG warming, but what evidence is there that aerosols have any effect at all?

The Hansen paper you refer to at the beginning is a piece of advocacy, not of good science. Have you thought about Hansen's 1988 paper, which predicted by now an increase in the global temperature anomaly of more than 1 degree? Actually, the measured increase is much much less than that, and is consistent with his Scenario C, in which the world had drastically reduced GHG warming so that it had ceased to exist after 2000.

How do you deal with the obvious flat-lining of global temperature in the last decade, though CO2 proportions in the atmosphere continue to rise?

I could go on and on. You do not seem interested in debate, only in speaking from the pulpit. People like me are most interested in the AGW question, have high respect for good science, and are used to weighing up evidence. I recognise your concern, but if you want to be taken seriously you have to be able to debate points, not just assert and assert.

Where do you get your fingers Andrew? I like the one about the arctic ice mate.

The US navy, who go there often, & for long periods in their subs, unlike academics who always seem to be at their office computer typing emails, have stated the 3 & 4 year old ice is increasing rapidly, as is new ice.

Oh silly me, you get this stuff from Hanson, Smith & co, renowned data modifiers, don't you?

How do the climate scientists communicate their BS with each other these days? I'm sure they won't trust emails again. Are they using snail mail, with self destructing paper, or have they enlisted Harry Potter, to use the cloak of invisibility for them?

Andrew.

Clearly you are convinced that doom is approaching. But could you explain the evidence and provide references to the proof that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing warming.

My impression is that all we see are assertions, perhaps flimsily supported by cherry picked model runs that include unproven assumptions of positive feedback.

I also notice that you seem to be pre-occupied with CO2 as the main problem facing mankind. Does that mean that you disagree with Dr Roger Pielke Sr who argues that man IS having an impact on local and regional climate, but that is mainly due to land-use factors such as deforestation, urbanisation, interference with natural hydrological cycles etc.

I acknowledge that I am a lay person in this area, so would appreciate your authorative response to these questions

"The increased level of energy in the atmosphere/ocean system is resulting in a series of extreme weather events around the globe (Figure 7)."

A little hard to prove, since the examination of historical records shows that the overall frequency of 'extreme weather events' has not increased over the last century. There has been a cluster over the past couple of years, yes, but all these have been adequately explained via normal processes -- nothing to do with AGW.

It's amusing that alarmists are prepared to seize on two years' worth of 'extreme events' as proof of AGW and ignore the rather embarrassing fact that the actual global temperature has not risen for fifteen years. Just how long is this 'pause' going to be, Andrew?

Sorry, I missed the graph. What a superb illustration! -- of cherry-picking, that is. I note that if I draw a line from 2000 to 2008 it shows a decline of about 10%. On that basis we should be disaster-free by 2072, no? But YOUR 'trend line' shows what Dr Johnson would have called 'the triumph of hope over experience'. Have you considered that more disasters might be reported over time because there are better communications, and more people around to report them?

Please leave the statistics to the experts.