Co2 levels are increasing at a 45 % angle on a yearly basis since 1988.
1988 was said to be the maximun safe level for co2. The levels are recorded every month.

Hey guys. I've got an idea. Why don't we ask the Climate Commissioners, particularly Tim Flannery and Will Steffen, to come and respond to our questions. Isn't that their job.

They will be able to show us why anthropogenic CO2 is a major problem, explain to us why the sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is around 3.5 deg C, and why natural cycles and land-use factors are minor.

Funny. I don't think that I have ever seen them respond to any question from any sceptic ever. Now is their chance.

Greenland alone can supply 6.0 metres of that ocean rise.
Arctic, Antarctic, every glacier, Must add up to a fair total.
Biggest year to date for antarctic ice melt, and its winter.

Dear Leo Lane,

From memory in our last discussion I called you loopy. I have seen nothing to change my mind. Everything tells me not to engage you again but hell I'm a sucker for punishment. Is there a specific point you would like me to address? If so I will give it a go.

Dear cohenite and curmudgeon,

You area pair if inseparable twins aren't you. Will either one or both of you tell me why hydro is only a so-called 'renewable'? It is a form of energy that is renewed when it rains and does not involve the use of ongoing fossil fuels. China has 18.5% of the world's hydro production and you two dismiss it like it is inconsequential.

And Lomborg is right in saying that China is the world's leading investor in environmentally friendly energy production. The crying shame is that a fair slice of that pie came from Australian research and technology that couldn't find friendly pastures here under the Howard government and the attacks from the likes of you two. Your ignorance, misinformation, denigration, and myopia has contributed to pissing all that up against the wall. It could have been so much different.

Dear cohenite,

I made several points, not just the one, in my post and the main one was to reveal even in a cursory glance how much you try to mislead on this issue. I am glad you are staying away from the science because you particularly suck at that aspect of the debate, but it turns out you are not all that flash on geography either. The Falkland Islands a country? Mmm.

<< Whether or not the problem is real, doing anything effective about it is proving just so costly and difficult that adaptation is really the only option. >>

Interesting comment, Curmy.

This amounts to just continuing with business as usual and making no attempts to soften the landing when things go awry.

I’d say that the sensible thing to do is to strive to change our ways. It will only take us so far, so we’ll have to do a whole of adapting as well.

But what we should be striving to deal with is peak oil and changing energy economics, population growth and an overall sustainability strategy. We should basically be setting climate change aside, because if we address these other things effectively, we’ll be dealing with climate change more effectively than if we try to address it in isolation.

Yesterday I wrote:

< So broaden your outlooks, get away from the narrow insistence that AGW isn’t real and have a look at the bigger picture. Hopefully you will then see that we do indeed need to act, and pretty dam decisively at that. >

As I thought would be the case, in the subsequent comments, there is not a mention of this all-important point.

It does indeed seem too hard for AGW detractors to deal with. They are only interesting in denouncing AGW and really don’t want to look at the bigger picture at all.