Graham wrote:

>>I was very happy to post this article on the assumption that one thing that both catastrophists and skeptics could agree on was that there are such things as sensible precautions, and we should take them.>>

Yep.

We should. We should view climate change policy as an exercise in global risk management.

Unfortunately there is hard core that refuses to concede there are any risks than need managing.

There are also the eco-warriors - eg the Greens - who have latched on to climate change to advance what I can only call a Stalinist agenda.

And, incidentally, if weather patterns are going to get more variable we need more dams.

A new report published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation concludes that there has been no increase in extreme weather events in recent decades.

Whenever an extreme weather event (such as a heat-wave, a flood, a drought or a tropical storm) is widely reported by the news media, a heated debate about its possible link with global warming is set off.

The latest example of this kind of speculation was triggered by the disastrous typhoon Haiyan that killed thousands of people in the Philippines in early November.

In his report The Global Warming-Extreme Weather Link: A Review Of The State Of Science Dr Madhav Khandekar, a former meteorologist from Environment Canada, examines several recent extreme weather events and discusses them the context of the ongoing climate debate

The IPCC on extreme weather:

http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

They conclude [chapter 4]:

“There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”
“The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”
“The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”

See also IPCC AR5 SPM Table 1.

The alarmists' position has now become so grotesque that they argue against the conclusions of their own fountain of wisdom, the IPCC.

The article is tripe but special mention to Grim who intones:

"I find it incomprehensible that, in this century with so much experience behind us, people are still losing homes to floods and fires."

This is morbid; the Wivenhoe disaster was directly due to AGW corruption of predictions so that a dam constructed to mitigate floods was being used to mitigate drought.

And the Black Saturday fires and every recent fire since has been exacerbated by Green policy preventing adequate fire hazard reduction, which still hasn't stopped the disgusting Greens from impersonating Vultures and using every disaster to peddle their alarmism.

So, to Grim I say I find it incomprehensible that anyone can be so hypocritical as to still blame AGW and ignore the culpability of the Greens and AGW predictions for these disasters.

And a special hello to Agro, still pedalling furiously as this scam evaporates from under his feet. Agro throws out bits of nonsense such as:

"There are two things driving sea level rise as the Earth warms, loss of land ice and expansion of oceanic water. A faster rate of sea level rise is a certainty if global surface temperatures continue to rise."

Very good, except neither is happening; the entirely normal decrease in Greenland ice is more than matched by the increase in Antarctic sheet ice and OHC is decreasing at the surface and down to 700 meters; and anyone who thinks deep OHC is increasing will be already getting excited about Santa.

shows that sea level increases have been a steady 3.2 mm a year for 20 years now.. Curmudgeon,
The sea surface is 140 million square miles. The total merchant marine shipping tonnage is 2.2 billion tonnes. Add to this all the naval shipping, the private water craft, in fact anything that displaces water on our seas. I'd imagine by the time it is all added up the combined displacement by all shipping on our oceans will just about make up a few mm. I'd not be at all surprised if that rise is caused by displacement. Let's see 1800m x 1800m x 140000000 x 3.2 mm equals ? Now what's the weight of sea water again ? Hmmh....

individual
its a thought, but I'd be seriously surprised that if all the ships ever made suddenly started sailing it made the slightest difference to sea levels.. the ocean is a very big place..

And this is an independant, unbiased organisation?
And this is also where John Howard gave a speech denying AGW So we are going to believe the report put out by them?

Global Warming Policy Foundation
The GWPF website carries an array of articles sceptical of scientific findings of anthropogenic global warming.
The foundation has rejected freedom of information (FoI) requests to disclose its source of funding on at least four different occasions.
he GWPF is located at 1 Carlton House Terrace, London, in a room rented from the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining.[1]
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a United Kingdom think tank founded by climate change denialist Nigel Lawson
Mr Howard delivered the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s annual lecture in London overnight