Yuyutsu,

"....nor would a neanderthal."

I beg to differ, in that a neanderthal would act on his environment in a way that was relatively sustainable and certainly would have his footprint contained simply because his evolutionary stage didn't allow for a greater technological footprint. He would also probably be far more mindful of any propensity to overuse and abuse scarce resources and his immediate surroundings because his life and daily experience were tied in so closely with the realities of life and death.

Remember these pics of China's pollution?
http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/

The buck doesn't stop with China as far as ocean and airborne pollutants go. The Western world has assigned China the factory of the world. China makes all the cheap stuff so we can go out and buy stuff that, by and large, we don't "need" - or at least we don't need quite so much of it. Cheap imports from China have helped to keep the US economy afloat.

We are voracious - and we have no idea how to contain our appetites.

"Note the first poster, he probably has no science training at all, yet he believes that anybody who believes humans are causing the climate to change are ignorant of science."

Kenny, if you're referring to me, I hold two science degrees and have worked in University science departments for several years. But that's not really relevant, because despite that I was a believer in AGW up until about six years ago, when I actually started to get interested in the arguments. My scientific training made it a little bit easier to see the gaping flaws in the AGW position, but it's not hard: anyone can do it.

All you have to do is stop pretending you're the brave hero of a disaster movie, fighting the wicked denier conspiracy, and look at the actual facts instead.

I have one question I pose to both parties found in the postings above.
If the climate is not warming, why is the Arctic sea-ice melting?

'Climate change, not terrorism, or the Global Financial Crisis is the true test of the resilience, durability and quality of American democracy in this generation and whether it can adapt to the changed conditions of the 21st century or is fated, as Toynbee has it, to die by its own hand, unable to rationally face, understand and deal with the great challenges which confront it. '

Was this a misquote from Kevein Rudds greatest moral challenge of the century. Hilarous if it was not so sad that the warmist religion plays on peoples ignorance and tradegy in order to push their own agendas. The arrogance of man to think he can determine climate is astounding. The moral issues are not about improving man's comfort and extending their life but ignoring their Creator and Saviour. Warmist need to take the higher moral ground but the history of their High Priests expose their total hypocrisy.

Anyone who links Sandy to climate change has their feet planted firmly in mid air.

There is no evidence that human emissions have any but a negligible effect on climate.

If you have any science which shows otherwise, Julian, then produce it.

Human emissions contribute 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, and there is a 10% natural variation, so the human effect is undetectable.

Developed countries are net absorbers of CO2. They absorb more than they emit.

To underline the fact that they have no science to back their proposition, the IPCC stated that it is 95% certain that human emissions affect climate. Since that announcement, five years ago, it has become clear that it is 99% certain that they do not.

A few years ago, Julian, you would have had some credibility for your nonsense, but those days have gone. Real science has overtaken people like you.

There is a great article today about the demise of your flawed and baseless faith:

“Regrettably for the global warming religion, its predictions have started to appear shaky, and the converts, many of whom have lost their jobs and much of their wealth, are losing faith. Worse, heretic scientists have been giving the lie to many of the prophecies described in the IPCC bible.”

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/losing-their-religion-as-evidence-cools-off/story-e6frgd0x-1226510184533

Thanks Cohenite, 0.7 degrees in 100 years.

And that 0.7-degree rise has been responsible for the 6.7 inches rise in sea-level ? I wonder how much of that 0.7-degree rise can be attributed to the urban-heat-island effect ? Or are there a multitude of other factors ?

Of course, some coast-lines are rising all the time (the Australian east coast), and some are falling all the time (Bangla Desh), so it's a mixed bag.

I guess the thing that bugs me about a focus on AGW is that it allows capitalism to take its eye - or rather, our eye - off the environment, and how it is being trashed. We get so spooked about one dodgy factor, and neglect the rest. All part of their devilishly cunning plan, I suspect.