@Saltpetre "And a 0.35 degree increase against a 0.4 forecast is not a bad correlation, is it?"

Well, yes, if you forecast warming somewhere in the range between 0.4 and 6.0 degrees, and allow for it to happen over a period between ten years and a century, there's a good chance that during that period you will be right, more or less. The problem is all the other models based on the same principles which were wrong, hopelessly wrong, egregiously wrong, way-outside-their-own-error-bars wrong, and the advocates who are still telling us with heartfelt sincerity that they WILL be right, some day, and we need to cripple our economy and hand over large sums of money in small denominations to the holy prophets who can lead us out of those terrible dangers which never actually seem to occur.

"Driving for growth" has produced the happiest, healthiest, wealthiest human population the world has ever had. It's given us planes, cars, televisions, the internet and an end to smallpox. And we're supposed to give this all up because it offends your moral sensibilities? You'll need to come up with a better reason than that.

Jon J,

""Driving for growth" has produced the happiest, healthiest,wealthiest human population the world has ever had. It's given us planes, cars, television, the internet and an end to smallpox..."

"Unsustainable"

Shame we're not any good at moderation, don't you think?

Just thought I'd add this:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-23/obesity-produces-diabetes-epidemic-in-india./4148616

Geoff of Perth
Although I did not fully follow your argumement on risks, the problem with the global warming story at the moment is that people think that the risk is much higher than it actually is, in part because its never been properly explained to them what it is based on. Bear in mind, also, that the proposed high ranges for the temperature forecasts require increases at several times the rate we have measured to date.

Saltpetre
I see from your post I got across a part of the message, but you haven't grasped all of it. To take the bit about greenhouse gas concentrations in the air. We have a reasonably good, continuous record of CO2 concentrations in the air going back to the late 1950s. There has been some increase since then but the rate of increase would have to, say, double from right now to have any chance of reaching the business as usual scenarios by 2050.

In other words, although I, as a layman, cannot challenge the expertise of the many economists and scientists who constructued the scenarios, a little common sense and arithmetic indicate that the more extreme scenarios are unlikely. In fact, concentrations may fall well under the business as usual scenarios without teh need cut emissions. Perhaps something may change, but there is no way of knowing this.

While I cannot be certain that there will be no concerted international effort to reduce emissions, international meetings to date have yielded very few results.

Jon J - quite right. Thre is no indication at all that the climate models have any success in forecasting. Quite the reverse.

Poirot -- nobody is stopping you from being as 'moderate' as you like. But imposing your views of 'moderation' on other people -- particularly people in developing nations making their way up from grinding poverty -- is a bit rich, don't you think? In every sense of the word.

"Driving for growth" has produced the happiest, healthiest, wealthiest human population
Jon J,
This was only possible by adhering to the principle that ignorance is bliss. Teaching that philosophy has also contributed tremendously.
For time being the russian roulette is only firing blanks. Economics will soon change the ammo.

Jon J,

The minute people in third world countries begin to make their way up from grinding poverty they are swamped with Westernisation, which is the primary cause of the diabetes epidemic in India. It's not they that should practice moderation. They are already forced to limit their materialism. It's the West that fails to moderate, showering itself with superfluous geegaws and engaging in conspicuous consumption, while simultaneously reaching its grasping fingers into third world economies - all in the name of unending "growth".

What's wrong with moderation?