If this works out we'll be able to grow tomatoes in the snow and save the expense of greenhouses. CO2 abatement like dieting is 'low regret' in the sense that there are other benefits. World crude oil production peaked several years ago, coal will peak perhaps in the next decade and natural gas a decade after that. Therefore it is prudent to get used to low carbon replacements now to avoid a massive shortfall later when fossil fuels run out. Some believe the trigger for the sub-prime mortgage crisis in 2008 was high fuel prices.

In Australia the cool summer is interpreted by some as a sign that warming isn't happening, ignoring the fact that it is warming elsewhere. We've also had the rainiest two year period since records began. To me that's slightly creepy and probable sign of sinister things to come. As an each way bet I'd be prepared to make some sacrifice to avoid things getting a lot worse.

No need to worry, Mike. The AGW theory itself is now being slowly, subtly but substantially re-written. After the next few years of revision, amendment and correction, it will be difficult to find a scientist willing to admit that he or she ever believed in a direct link between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature at all. There'll be endless references to a lack of comprehensive understanding of climate, renewed emphasis on the role of the sun, further analysis of ground level temperature recording stations. On and on, until the whole thing disappears in a cloud of spin.

Sadly, this backsliding won't recover the billions of dollars wasted on renewable energy schemes, carbon taxes, direct climate action programmes and all the other political and bureaucratic interventions enacted at great expense to ordinary people the world over. But at least we won't have to listen to more rubbish about the greatest moral challenge of our time.

Here we have the mysterious “they” again. I wish I could find out who “they” actually are.
But never mind, this is yet another of the spate of misleading facts that seems to be streaming out of the centers of misinformation at the moment. It must be a crisis for them to be so worked up about it. Maybe “they” realize that “they” are losing?

Nevermind, the sky will still be blue, and for socialist governments that's just as good a reason to tax and regulate.

Even though it might be true that CO2 is not a problem when it comes to global warming, it certainly is a problem when it concerns the increasing acidity of the oceans. You cannot keep expecting the ocean to dissolve more and more CO2 forever without it having some detrimental effect. So let us have a discussion on the consequences to the wider environment as we burn up all the available sources of non renewable energy.

David

The gw pseudo scientist will do exactly what they have done with the evolution myth. They will continue to interpret everything according to their story, ignore facts and demonise anyone telling the truth. A few will humble themselves and see the deceit of the myth but most will have their careers dependant upon the consensus. It is quite amusing watching history repeat itself.

As Stopa points out, the whole thing depends on a feedback mechanism built into climate models, and that feedback mechanism has yet to be properly verified. Efforts to back test models, run them against known results to see if they fit, are totally inadequate as any sort of proof.

VK3AUU - sorry but the acid oceans thing is on a flimsiest of evidence and does not depend on CO2 concentrations as such, but on the rate of change in those concentrations being too fast for the ocean creatures to adapt. That's much harder to prove or refute but, in any case, even if you accept acid oceans as a problem, it is a trivial danger compared to over-fishing. This is one of the problems of the current global warming obsession - it is blinding us to the real dangers..

The wealthy minority need a boogey man to make the poor, ignorant masses fear and tremble. Without that, they will see how we are bleeding them dry like dumb cattle and probably revolt and do away with the rich.\

SO we have the AGW boogey man. It has been the best one since the fall of the Soviet Union, when the world was asking hard questions about wealth redistribution... God help us!

But now things are moving on and AGW is becoming thredbare.

But we have another boogey man waiting in the wings.... Guess?

HA HA you schmucks!

Yours sincerely
Rupert.

Curmudgeon, I am very interested about these real dangers that we are becoming blind to. Could you do a piece for us outlining what the real environmental dangers are and how they are vastly more threatening to us than AGW?

I think that would be very interesting.

Kaep - I wonder who the "wealthy minority" really are?

If you check out the links on the authors website you will see that he is closely associated with the right-wing USA corporate think tanks which basically have unlimited funds at this disposal. They are all financed by mega-rich billionaires including the Koch brothers, the Bradleys, the Coors,the Olins, Weyerhauser etc etc etc. And the founders of net-work marketing companies such as Amway, Melaleuca.

In these days of Labor leadership struggles beware what yee plausibly argue - for Rudd may return and he considers his CO2 beliefs a MORAL crusade.

Forget not the fate of that moral guardian Henry VIII's wives.

Plantagenet

Bugsy: You ask about environmental issues other than anthropogenic CO2 caused global warming. The following from Wikipedia is a start.

"This is a list of environmental issues. As such they relate to the anthropogenic effects on the natural environment.

Climate change: — Global warming • Global dimming • Fossil fuels • Sea level rise • Greenhouse gas • Ocean acidification • Shutdown of thermohaline circulation • Environmental impact of the coal industry

Conservation: — Species extinction • Pollinator decline • Coral bleaching • Holocene extinction • Invasive species • Poaching •
Endangered species

Energy — Energy conservation • Renewable energy • Efficient energy use • Renewable energy commercialization • Environmental impact of the coal industry

Environmental degradation — Eutrophication • Habitat destruction • Invasive species

Environmental health — Air quality • Asthma • Environmental impact of the coal industry • Electromagnetic fields • Electromagnetic radiation and health • Indoor air quality • Lead poisoning • Sick Building Syndrome

Genetic engineering — Genetic pollution • Genetically modified food controversies

Intensive farming — Overgrazing • Irrigation • Monoculture • Environmental effects of meat production • Slash and burn • Pesticide drift • Plasticulture

Land degradation — Land pollution • Desertification

Soil — Soil conservation • Soil erosion • Soil contamination • Soil salination

Land use — Urban sprawl • Habitat fragmentation • Habitat destruction

Nanotechnology — Nanotoxicology • Nanopollution"

More coming next post....

More from Wikipedia:

"Nuclear issues — Nuclear fallout • Nuclear meltdown • Nuclear power • Nuclear weapons • Nuclear and radiation accidents • Nuclear safety • High-level radioactive waste management.

Overpopulation — Burial • Water crisis • Overpopulation in companion animals • Tragedy of the commons

Ozone depletion — CFC

Pollution — Environmental impact of the coal industry • Nonpoint source pollution • Point source pollution • Light pollution • Noise pollution • Visual pollution

Water pollution — Environmental impact of the coal industry • Acid rain • Eutrophication • Marine pollution • Ocean dumping • Oil spills • Thermal pollution • Urban runoff • Water crisis • Marine debris • Microplastics • Ocean acidification • Ship pollution • Wastewater • Fish kill • Algal bloom • Mercury in fish

Air pollution — Environmental impact of the coal industry • Smog • Tropospheric ozone • Indoor air quality • Volatile organic compound • Particulate matter

Reservoirs — Environmental impacts of reservoirs

Resource depletion — Exploitation of natural resources • Overdrafting

Consumerism — Consumer capitalism • Planned obsolescence • Over-consumption

Fishing — Blast fishing • Bottom trawling • Cyanide fishing • Ghost nets • Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing • Overfishing • Shark finning • Whaling

Logging — Clearcutting • Deforestation • Illegal logging

Mining — Acid mine drainage • Hydraulic fracturing • Mountaintop removal mining • Slurry impoundments

Toxins — Chlorofluorocarbons • DDT • Endocrine disruptors • Dioxin • Toxic heavy metals • Environmental impact of the coal industry • Herbicides • Pesticides • Toxic waste • PCB • Bioaccumulation • Biomagnification

Waste — Electronic waste • Litter • Waste disposal incidents • Marine debris • Medical waste • Landfill • Leachate • Environmental impact of the coal industry • Incineration • Great Pacific Garbage Patch"

Some (including me) would argue about this list, and maybe there are many more issues such as use of herbicides, interference with natural hydrological systems etc. Roger Pielke Sr has much material on land-use issues if you really are interested.

But given the lack of evidence for anthropogenic CO2 being a real problem, it is strange how the resources of the planet are being focused on that issue, and many of the more serious issues mentioned above are being ignored.

Bugsy - I see Herbert S has given you quite a list but the one I mentioned in the original post, which is undoubted, is over-fishing..

There are genuine projections that most of the world's fishing grounds will be wiped out in 50 years time.. like the Canadians managed to wipe out the Grand Banks grounds a couple of decades back.. We need to adopt a different approach to allocating quotas..

Off the top of my head search on a guy called Boris Worm (okay, I know, but that's his name)..

The acid ocean stuff is just a distraction..

If they are wrong it will mean that we reduced our reliance on limited fossil fuels and found other sources of energy.

What if they were right and we did nothing? What would be worse?

What woulds be worse wobble. Giving control over our lives to the UN, & perhaps a world government.

It doesn't take much savvy to see the EU as a preview of the chaos ahead unless we kick the UN out of the world control they are trying for.

That is the greatest danger today, with far too many of our lefties & academics forming a fifth column within our society, trying to destroy us.

"What if they were right and we did nothing? What would be worse?"

Then we would have a very minor increase in warming over what's going to happen according to the predictions even with massive down shifting of the worlds economy.

"What could be worse?" Losing the opportunity we have right now to keep the flow of development and innovation going long enough for the benefits to flow through to those still trapped in real poverty. We may not solve all the worlds problems with engineering solutions but there have been massive changes over my lifetime which have been flowing onto many of the worlds poor. Changes that make lives better.

We can back off from that in search of minor changes to possible AGW outcomes and possibly doom all of the future to never having the wealth again to take the step's needed. What if this is our one shot at those changes?

R0bert

Herbert Stencil, I did not ask for a list of environmental issues other than global warming. I can use Wikipedia just as well as you, of that I am certain. I am quite well aware that there are environmental issues.

Also, that list is not really informative, it's just a list.

What I was asking for was that Curmudgeon do a piece on outlining what he thinks are the great environmental dangers he sees us facing and why AGW is making us 'blind' to them, or how AGW is preventing us from addressing them.

Curmudgeon rarely discusses environmental threats other than to dismiss them or diminish them in facile comparisons with no actual analysis like the ones he has just made.

Please Mark, do a piece outlining your real concerns for the environment and how we can address them.

Bugsy, thanks for your appreciation for the hours of effort I put into those posts :-)

But you know what really puzzles me about this cAGW scare where we are told that anthropogenic CO2 emissions will cause terrible global warming over the next 100 years? Well actually several things. Maybe, given your better knowledge, you can explain the following:

1. There seems little argument anywhere (from sceptics or anyone else) that a doubling of CO2 will result in around 1 deg C of warming. Which nobody is really worried about. The real concern is what are the feedbacks. IPCC presents assumptions (without any evidence or proof) that the feedbacks are positive and will result in midpoint 3.5 deg C warming for a doubling of CO2. Can you provide the evidence - like, you know, proof for this? That contradicts the studies that argue that the feedbacks are neutral or negative?

2. It is evident that natural cycles play a significant role in climate change. It would seem that you have proof that these effects are minor.

3. It is also evident that anthropogenic land-use factors (many mentioned in the wikipedia list) are affecting local and regional climate in many places, such that some people confuse those climate change effects with CO2 caused warming. But you apparently consider these impacts minor too.

Given that the climate is complex, poorly understood, and clearly affected by natural and land-use factors, can you tell me again just why it is that you are so certain that anthropogenic CO2 is such a terribly bad thing to justify all the pain?

An essay would be good!

Actually, no Herbert, I do not claim any superior knowledge about climate change. I would not be able to contribute anything to the debate than you have already read on Wikipedia. An essay on that topic for OLO would be treated with a big yawn I suspect.

However, I reckon an essay about about how the AGW debate is detracting from serious and urgent environmental issues would be excellent. Mark has made claims that this is so, and that our money would be better spent on fisheries, as an example.

I reckon an essay on that would be much better.

The article is either frightfully ignorant or cynical. Yet another "scientist" trying to degrade an entire discipline that they are not a part of. Nice FUD, but not a single evidence based argument to be found.
I'd agree with previous posts that there are more important issues than GW at the moment...the leading one being overpopulation and the promotion of greed and aggression in our society.
The anti-GW compaign is part of anti-science which appears these days where profits or power are threatened. Big tobacco, big oil and big religion are all "fighting" campaigns to get their own way. The fact that science comes to a conclusion they don't like is easily combated using fake argument (but the data shows *this*), political slurs (all climate scientists are scam artists looking for grant money) and downright runner style evil slurs (the evil evolutionists driven by devils!).
I am working very closely with climate scientists: they are *not* paid excessively! They are fully aware of the complexities that are frequently raised on the blogs by laymen...yes they have considered sun variability, orbit changes, cosmic rays, clouds and all the natural cycles and variability...yes the amount of natural variability is large when compare to GW signal.(but this does not make the GW signal irrelevant!). GW is about energy balances...of which the most intuitive is temperature...energy also goes into phase change, physical motion, chemical changes, etc...Please forget the "room heater" analogy and all arguments based on it! Over simplification is a great way to win an argument with an ignorant audience...but ultimately undermines credibility.
I reckon the author is right about one thing...in 15 years the argument will be settled. Anyone not listening to science and being driven by greedy corporate interests will be pretty stuffed by then!
Thanks runner for linking evolution to climate science...you inadvertently say some good stuff sometimes! Can you comment on flat-earth theory and bible studies please?

"What if they were right and we did nothing? What would be worse?"

How about giving control of legislation and the environment over to financially self-interested lobby groups with deep pockets to skew fact and public opinion to maintain their profits?

Forget the alleged UN world government conspiracy, it's Corporations who really run the world and tell us what to think, buy and do and governments seem powerless against them.

why not give some air time to , why is the co2 in the atmosphere at a all time high. The one degree increase in ocean temp; is already causing the ocean to give up its stored co2.
Co2 is a global warmer; not in dispute.

Damn those false alarms, I'm going back to bed ... YAWN.

The skeptics won't be interested, but for anybody who actually
want some information rather than spin, can I suggest
the following:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120119_Temperature.pdf
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha06510a.html

Thank you for that Geoff. Those two articles really make some sense even though the unbelievers will try to find fault with the data.

David