It probably will leed to crop production, in the Antarctic. There are places now starving to death. The odds are against you lot, all the way.

If people are starving to death its because of policies based on the lies of AGW. In Australia productive farms are already being closed down for carbon credits; see:

http://www.beefcentral.com/news/article/391

Henbury Station would feed 100,000 people per annum; now gone because of the lie of AGW.

And google biofuels, one of the stupid 'solutions' to AGW, which mean even more farmland closed to food production:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/10/AR2011021006323.html?referrer=emailarticle

If proper management of arable land was allowed and not sacrificed to preservation of 'nature', as demanded by AGW, Australia alone could feed the world.

AGW is a lie and its 'solutions' have already cost many lives and will cost more.

All those 17000 cattle combined would weigh 5 kg. That sort of land has been bought back for years as they become available. There is no ariable involved. If it was looked after , there would not be any feral camels.
Those cattle live a life of misery, Two thirds of AU for $300 m / yr The land could be put to better use.

To those who still choose to parade their ignorance.

This study was oft cited by many very well known “sceptical sites”:

Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum
Science 9 December 2011:
Vol. 334 no. 6061 pp. 1385-1388
DOI: 10.1126/science.1203513
Andreas Schmittner et al

The equilibrium climate sensitivity for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations (ECS2xC) from preindustrial times has been established as a well-defined standard measure
Best-fitting model simulation (ECS2xC = 2.4 K)
And as reported in Science Daily: “models with low climate sensitivity — less than 1.3 degrees — underestimate the cooling almost everywhere at the Last Glacial Maximum, the researchers say. The closest match, with a much lower degree of uncertainty than most other studies, suggests climate sensitivity is about 2.4 degrees”.

Of course noting that this study is at the lower end of climate sensitivity estimates.

Moreover, it severely questions and, if fact, refutes the low climate sensitivity arguments of Plimer, McLean, Carter, Monckton, Lindzen and maybe even Roy Spencer, all of whom have spruiked much less than 1.3DC. As a consequence, that probably puts paid to all the climate sensitivity studies done by the Galileo Movement, the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the SPPI, the Heartland Institute or any of the oxymoronic Climate Science Coalitions.

Sillyfilly continues her untruths and insults. And the Schmittner paper continues a trend of decreasing climate sensitivity [CS] estimates from the AGW church; Arhennius gave 5.9C, Hansen in 1988 gave 4.7C, the 1995 IPCC gave 4.25C, 2001 IPCC 3.92C, 2007 IPCC 3.26C, Hansen in 2008 2.5C and now Schmittner with 2.3C.

A couple of things about this which an alarmist like SF would never admit. Firstly, even though official estimates of CS have been dropping as the AGW scientists realise their modelling is wrong it doesn't stop the official AGW science from accepting wildly exaggerated estimates of CS of up to 12C [see: Steven C. Sherwood and
Matthew Huber]. This temperature increase would exceed the highest Global Average Temperatures {GAT] ever recorded over 600 million years!

Secondly, even the Schittner paper may have grossly exggerated CS; it has done so firstly because it has averaged land and sea temperatures and CS's despite there being profound differences between the CS response of either.

Secondly Schmittner uses his model to develope a climate reconstruction of the Last Glacial Maximum [LGM], the coldest period of recent geological time; his reconstrcution shows the Arctic being WARMER during this period! This along with the fact that over the 20,000 years since the LGM, there has been NO correlation between temperature and CO2 [ see: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf ] suggests that whatever CS is produced by CO2 has already occurred at levels below 100PPM.

AGW is a failed theory and a scam.

Sillyfilly
The problem is that what the scientific institutions are claiming is not backed up by the actual science. There is a recurrent pattern in the models of assuming warming from the outset, which is what is to be proved, thus indulging a fallacy right from the get-go. Furthermore, other people don't hold their lives and liberties subject to a condition that an empire of government functionary boffins manipulating *models* think they know better than everyone else in the world put together.

But even if everything you claim about the climate science were conceded, please admit that it is scientific illiteracy to claim or imply that climate science provides any justification for any policy whatsoever, on the ground that science does not supply value judgments.

To justify policy, you need two further steps.

Please prove that:
- the result of any warming would be negative, rather than positive, when all relevant human valuations, now and in the future, are taken into account. Show your workings including your data set.
- policy action could necessarily make the situation better rather than worse, compared with non-policy action, by reference to all the relevant human valuations, now and in the future. Show your workings including your data set.