The IPCC has not measured and assessed photosynthesis-linked warmth in ocean algae plant matter, especially ocean algae plant matter proliferated by unprecedented sewage nutrient overload pollution dumped daily.

More than 50 percent of world oxygen come from the oceans.
And I think there is more plant matter is oceans than there is plant matter on land.
So why has algae plant matter not been assessed by AGW-Kyoto-IPCC and CSIRO science?

Prime Minister Abbott is going nowhere with warming science until he and his government engage in real science, complete science.

Well, if the IPCC is backing away from placing us all under the authoritarian control of global agencies (in the guise of mitigation) , an awful lot of awful Greenies are going to be awfully dissatisfied.They were counting on AGW to give them an excuse to implement world govt and the redistribution of resources and population.

They will just have try a different poison arrow --but don't worry, the Greenies have plenty of poison arrows in their quiver.

That some believe the benefits of reducing emissions aren’t worth the costs of doing so, and that we should simply adapt, is not the IPCC message. To mischievously construe this as the message places a huge discount on anything the author of this article has to say, IMO.

Lilico's statement "Our first step in adapting to climate change should be to accept that we aren't going to mitigate it." is fatalistic and does not draw a line in the sand or set any goal on warming. Unlike dumb animals, we humans fully aware of our own demise (life is a terminal illness)and must be fatalistic about that, but I still don't think we are that stupid that we will not work to extend existence of our civilization.

How much do we trust the cost-benefit analysis anyway:

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/4/9/policy-politics/lomborg-man-behind-ipcc-mutiny? then utm_source=exact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=673912&utm_campaign=cs_daily&modapt=

then: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/4/10/policy-politics/oldies-dont-believe-global-warming?utm_source=exact&utm_medium=email&utm_content=679946&utm_campaign=cs_daily&modapt=

JF Aus, your hypothesis has more chance of explaining this http://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends

Well Don, It's not either either but both.
Of course we need to mitigate against man made climate change as much as possible, but particularly, where that includes increased sustainable economic growth and better standards of living for all.
We should crack on with the development of large scale oil rich algae farming.
This could be kick started in the Murray/Darling basin, for almost innumerable reasons, some of which include facts like, algae production uses just 1-2% of traditional irrigated agriculture!
And that means, huge and vastly more reliable returns for all who depend on the Murray/Darling, inclusive of the environment.
And we should not continue to send millions of annual tons of biological waste out to sea, where it does nothing but harm to the marine environment!
Turning this stuff into energy, via Aussie innovation, [methane producing digesters and ceramic fuel cells,] will allow us to power every home for the lowest possible cost; and produce a salable energy surplus into the bargain, as well as endless free hot water!
The by products of this process include, carbon rich soil improving, thoroughly sanitized compost, rich in extremely expensive phosphates and nitrates, and reusable water eminently suitable for nearby oil rich algae production.
Some of which create ready to use jet fuel or diesel, that's child's play to extract!
Moreover, algae absorb around 2.5 times their body-weight in atmospheric carbon; and, under optimized conditions, quite literally double that size and absorption/oil production capacity, every 24 hours!
At least one industry expert is on the public record stating, these new fuel types, given scales of economy, could be retailed for around 44 cents a litre retail!
Adapt or mitigate?
Why not, but particularly, if both are one and the same and there's big bucks in it!
Rhrosty

Just let me get this straight. Don Aitkin has read a blog by Judith Curry who has read a newspaper article by Andrew Lilico and this is enough for him to write an article about.

He or she (it's not clear who) gives two wildly different estimates of global GDP costs of expected temperature increase, and then goes to write as though he or she has completely forgotten about one of them.

And Don doesn't notice this - or he thinks that's the right way to discuss an issue like this. Is this really the same Don Aitkin who was formerly VC of the University of Canberra?

jeremy, you are correct, still it will get worst... the trolls will come with their copy and paste comments fron ABolt and whatupwiththat......