Climate science and predictions about future changes in climate, regionally or totally, are fraught with difficulties.

Assessing the relative roles of the sun (and other extra-terrestrial factors), greenhouse gases, oceans, and vegetation (especially de-vegetation) are difficult, especially with the relatively preliminary data that has been available.

Pascal's Wager, or similar, anyone?

And still our government is going ahead with the carbon tax.

The whole global warming thing reminds me of Paul Erlichs predictions of population doom in the 1960s

This is a vile article - an example of baseless, opinionated cr_p, in this case "supported" only by the incorrect assertion that the past 14 years of climate measurements indicate that no climate change is occurring.

When I read articles such as this one I am reminded of the boiled frog story.

This author, like the frog, does not agree that his environment is heating up and that it may become unbearable, despite knowing of abundant reports of objective measurements of its temperature and of the nature of the fire beneath the frog's pot. Like the frog, the author argues that he is correct and that the thermometer and the body of knowledge about the effects of a fire beneath a pot full of water are wrong.

The effect of this short-termism on the frog is well known.

Hansen and others are entitled to draw attention to the facts and the science, without snide abuse such as presented in this article, especially the unsubstantiated attempted character assassination which is stated as "option c.. Hansen is misrepresenting..."

Shame, OLO, shame.

In a recent article, Andy Lacis, a career long colleague and co-author with James Hansen, has written a critique of a Garth Paltridge’s recent article.
http://judithcurry.com/2012/07/02/garth-paltridge-held-hostage-by-the-uncertainty-monster/

“Garth Paltridge held hostage (?) by the uncertainty monster”

In this critique Lacis's says:

“6) The Climate Stuff that is NOT at all that Uncertain
...
With the atmospheric CO2 concentration increasing to about 4% (40,000 ppmv), the global annual-mean surface temperature will rise to about 60 °C, a temperature extreme that will very likely kill off most everything that is alive. (This has not happened in the geological past. But it could happen in the future if all the CO2 that is locked up in the carbon reservoirs was released into the atmosphere).”

This is an example of the level of alarmism propagated by the leading climate scientists. James Hansen, the so-called father of climate change - predicted the oceans would evaporate altogether if we don’t take urgent action to stop our evil ways.

Hansen’s and Lacis’ alarmism and scaremongering is worse than even Al Gore claimed. It’s worse than even SkepticalScience or RealClimate would advocate (I think!)

This is the height of scaremongering. This is what the activists climate scientists truly believe.

I have always taken the view that the main game is conservation of the resources that the earth provides to human beings.

Any claim that population can continue to expand and that the expanding population can continue to use fossil carbon and metal ores at an expanding rate on a finite planet will ultimately be proved wrong.

For example last night's Benny Peiser email stated,
"The proven gas reserves in the US are 50% higher in 2010 than 30 years ago during which time the country consumed more than double the amount of the 1980 proved gas reserve number. That's the complete opposite of every energy prediction ever made. How could that be?"

That only shows that the earlier estimates hadn't been accurate and probably ignored shale seam gas and doesn't show that all subsurface gas, including shale seam gas, is not a finite reserve.

A friend recently calculated that at the current rate of expansion the main iron ore resources of Australia, currently estimated at 25 billion tonnes will be exhausted in about 25-30 years. Even if they lasted twice that time they would still eventually be exhausted as will copper. The industry to be in then will be scrap dealing.

Thorium and Uranium are the least exhaustible fuel resources and could supply human energy needs for thousands of generations without producing significant quantities of carbon dioxide.

I tend to agree with JohnBennetts, especially with the simplistic bare assertions in passages like this ...

" ... the Earth is essentially never in balance. As the balance changes the Earth warms or cools. Hansen and his colleagues say it's warming because less heat is going out. But the planet is actually cooling because less heat is coming in since the Sun is in a slight dimming period."

It would be appropriate to support such contentions with references and nuanced discussion of those contentions.