"I'm more interested in the socio-economic machinations that drive the denialist movement...the big oil sponsorship...the latent threat to the capitalist status quo, etc. - and the employment on non-scientists such as Lord Monckton to push the agenda."

This is what is pushing me away from blogging; there is no point; "the denialist movement"; there is no "denialist movement"; there is only an unproven thesis that extra CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels, primarily, is producing, initially, global warming but subsequently "dangerous" and by implication, unnatural climate change.

Not only unproven but disproved.

What is left is a belief and there is no point arguing with people about their beliefs because that only intensifies those beliefs; especially when it is a belief which has huge amounts of funding; the disparity between what sceptics receive [in my case nothing] and the subsidisation of the pro-AGW groups is enormous and growing; the reason for this is simple; big business will always queue up when governments are giving away money which is what the Australian government is doing; so big business is investing in 'green' to get back those government funds.

So, AGW is a belief and a business; almost insurmountable.

How is this thread now about qualifications?

The answer sought from beanbag, is what scientific basis is there, for asserting that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.

He has not answered the question, yet still backs the AGW fraud, with no scientific basis for his stance.

He will talk about anything but his own mendacity as he evades the question.

He considers that I need help. I thought I was managing simply by telling the truth and pointing to clear evidence of the dishonesty of the fraud backers, starting with the Climategate emails. People who believe that the Climategate miscreants can be cleared are badly in need of help.

As for boreot, who has brought out the tired old Arctic Ice nonsense, he is probably beyond help. The Arctic ice goes away every summer to the cries of the alarmists, and comes back every winter, when they try to distract us with some other nonsense.

Thanks for the opportunity to point out once again the moral bankruptcy of the AGW fraud backers.

I will devote the rest of this week to my small but productive business, then take a break until next year.

Merry Christmas, and best wishes for a carbon tax free future.

Leo lane,

"The Arctic ice goes away every summer.....and comes back every winter."

That's as simplistic a response as I've ever heard.

The measurement was of the "annual minimum extent". this reached the second lowest level in2011 - "a near record melt".

Further to that, the article states that "Atmospheric and oceanic conditions were not as conducive to ice loss this year, but the melt still neared 2007 levels...It looks like spring ice cover is so thin now that large areas melt out in summer, even without persistent weather patterns."

Leo lane, you understate the importance of Arctic ice cover in your simplistic explanation....the significance of the reflective properties of the Arctic ice sheet is a critical dimension in analysing climate change.

Poirot, responding on a public computer in transit. There is nothing nice to be obliging about, you see this, others see this. Idiots, clowns and beanbags have no chance of being given any modicum of respect. Graham quite rightly chimed in but hey, it cuts both ways.

No matter - nothing is going to change the minds or attitudes of those so steadfast in their beliefs. There is nothing in this article that hasn't been addressed before. Not going to feed them no more (good title for a song:) Gotta go.

bonmot,

Have to agree with you there : )

“...expressed by the Chief Scientist (interestingly, not a climate scientist”
This is good news for our overburdened health industry; apparently it's a waste of time consulting a doctor unless one is oneself a doctor.
Fresh Water: we don't have to worry about dying of thirst, because so many people will have already died of thirst...
Sea level: “The most plausible prediction is for a rise of about 1 foot per century” Plausible, that is, to people who don't believe it will rise at all. Cognitive dissonance.
“Coastal flooding will increase slightly in some places...” Breathtakingly thoughtless. According to Don Hinrichsen, United Nations consultant and author:
“Recent studies have shown that the overwhelming bulk of humanity is
concentrated along or near coasts on just 10% of the earth’s land surface. As of 1998, over half the population of the planet — about 3.2 billion people — lives and works in a coastal strip just 200
kilometers wide (120 miles), while a full two-thirds, 4 billion, are found within 400 kilometers of a coast.”

Food: “Quite simply, mild warming plus more CO2 means more productive farming, more food from the same area. After all, CO2 is an essential plant food...”
Rubbish. Firstly, CO2 is just one ingredient. A small increase in CO2 cannot in any way compensate for dumping millions of tons of phosphate, sulphur, potassium and trace elements into the oceans. Secondly, green house growers who use CO2 as a growth accelerant have to use levels so high that workers have to be issued with breathing apparatus, or only increase the CO2 for periods when no mammals (like humans, for instance) are present.
Thirdly, what is the point of increasing CO2 when the very things that benefit most (trees) are being cut down at egregious rates?
Collateral benefits: zero.