curmudgean "Prof Garnaut should know better than to make public policy recommendations on climate models that have such a limited forecasting track record to date."

You are correct, but as we are seeing with the alarmists who like less and less to be questioned, now that the MSM is finally getting around to it, the strategy is based on the belief that the community is basically, stupid.

The problem is, that's quite obvious and people are not buying it. Much to the horror of the ALP, the eco types and other alarmists, who are used to the MSM reprinting their catastraphonica as fact.

Staring a great big new tax in the face has had a sobering effect on the community which previously went along with the herd, because that's what you do. Increasing prices of everything energy based, even before the tax, is causing the herd to falter and reconsider.

The cheerleaders and followers of the alarmists get ever more hysterical, the usual smearing, with a total lack of consistency.

They defend Garnaut with no climate qualifications, but demand anyone who wants to skeptically question climate science MUST be a climate scientist with a well formulated position and be published to their individual satisfaction. Bob Carter and other "known" skeptics are not acceptable of course.

I guess they want to shut down any debate or questioning completely, wouldn't that be convenient? Totalitarian state anyone?

rpg - catastraphonica.. oh wow, I like the word. Fully agree.

Nicco - again, and I think this has happened before, you have completely misunderstood what I posted. I never denied that glaciers are shrinking. In fact I agreed that they are shrinking overall (a few would be expanding or steady state due to local conditions). This is because temperatures are high, as I stated.

The point that has not been explained, and its you who should look again at the documents you have referenced, is just where they are on average IN RELATION TO their low points in Medieval Warming Period. So have they got there or not? Do these trumpeted documents of yours actually address that point at all? I think you will find that they don't.

You will also find that your shots would be much better aimed if you actually read the posts, rather than launch into pre-set denounciations when ever you see the word glacier, without regard to what the post actually says.

imajulianutter , there are many who would say that AGW is the explanation for such extreme events. Bob Brown would even go as far as to blame coal mining for them.

You are throwing caution to the wind -- or is it the sun? By displaying such inquisitive thinking, you risk being classified as a denier. You will never qualify as an alarmist

Herbert: before we ask your question

"3. What can we do to moderate warming?"

we need to ask three that you missed:

2a. Is the warming more harmful than beneficial on balance?
2b. If it is harmful, can we feasibly do anything to mitigate it?
2c. If we can, will the benefits of attempting mitigation exceed the costs?

And since the evidence suggests that the answer to all these questions is No, the query stops there.

Wattle. The gas CO2 dissolves in water and produces carbonic acid. The excess gas that you are concerned about is dissolving in the sea. The evidence for this is the lowering of the pH which according to researchers on the Great Barrier Reef, is resulting in some of the coral being dissolved.

Try Googling "Dissolving coral reefs" and you will find 1280000 references.

David

Nicco. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Jon J. I would respectfully suggest that the answers to your questions will have to wait for the passage of time before you can be so certain of the answers. The answers in fact may not all be in the negative.

David