or more likely they will come with actual data rational argument and logical thinking.

Now before any of you warmists vent just give me one skerrick of data that proves the link between increasing co2 and global warming.

If you can, you have a chance of me considering what you say.

I can supply you references to data showing increasing OLR, increasing DTR, expanding ice in the polar regions and stable surface temps for nearly 18 years. These are the things your lot of so called scientists at one time were claiming, with their modelling, as settled science and were actually directly the reverse of the now recorded actual data.

How do you explain that?

Jeremy and the mutt introduce the personal element into the proceedings which is the default position of the alarmists.

The comparison between adapting and mitigating AGW through keeping temp to a maximum of 1.5C increase first and foremost is a pointless exercise because AGW is a failed theory.

So who cares what the IPCC is now conceding since it has been the most aggressive and the source of all the false 'science' which has come out in support of AGW.

But, if for argument sake, you did do a comparison between the cost of adaption and of mitigation there is no comparison because Stern's so-called benchmark calculations are ridiculous.

Many sources show this including Nordhaus who has concluded that the favoured programs of Al Gore and Sir Nicholas Stern would cost the world more than unmitigated global warming. He found that global warming under a business as usual case would inflict damage on the world amounting to $22 trillion. Sir Nicholas Stern’s proposed course of action would reduce that damage to $9 trillion, but at a cost of $27 trillion, for a total cost to the world of $36 trillion, $14 trillion more than unmitigated global warming. Al Gore’s package of measures would reduce global warming costs to $10 trillion at a cost of $34 trillion, for a total cost of $44 trillion, twice the total cost of global warming.

Alternatively Lomborg in 'Cool It' showed doing nothing would cost 1 trillion but have benefits of 2 trillion while maintaining a 1.5C increase would cost 94 trillion for 11 trillion in benefits.

Like every other aspect of AGW the cost/benefit analysis is a joke.

Thanks to Don for another episode in the sorry saga of AGW.
The IPCC is still a long way from acknowledging the truth, namely that there is no scientific basis for AGW, and that statements asserting that human activity has any measurable effect on climate are without any published scientific foundation.

This may be a way to direct attention away from their unscientific approach to what they assert is a problem, and from the fact that although CO2 content in the atmosphere has increased, we have not had the warming that the IPCC predicted would occur as a consequence of such an increase.

They may divert our attention from their failed predictions, but will we not question their assertion that warming will be harmful? Historically it has always been beneficial. Waarm climate has meant prosperous times for us.

Is it not time that we recognised the mendacity of the IPCC and took appropriate action? Our carbon tax was “justified” on the basis of lies propagated by the IPCC

Adapting to climate change real or imagined, man made or naturally cyclic, must include putting essential services underground!
I mean, how many times are we gong to rebuild or fix transmission lines due to flood, fire or tempest.
And how much better off would we all be, if people could keep their fridges/pumps etc going, call out in an emergency, or travel point A to point B in complete safety, during the height of the worse storm, flood or fire in living memory.
Bridges, road and rail are routinely washed away or made uncrossable by storms/storm-water; season after season! Ditto electricity services! One in one hundred events, seem to be happening every decade?
We bury gas, water and fibre to the home for sound economical and safety reasons. And if power lines are to expensive too bury, then our homes should be powered by gas consuming ceramic cells. The power bill could be halved then halved again, as the first consequence!
Sensibly located tunnels aren't compromised by vagaries in the weather, neither are submarines.
Fogs and snow storms can close airports and the Atlantic can whip up a perfect storm, yet the very fast electric train arrives on time in London or Paris, through the chunnel!
And the submarine just powers toward it's destination, with the usual armchair ride, while surface shipping is destroyed in literal millions of tons, by worsening storms.
Pragmatism is just not that hard, except for our valiant money wasting, penny wise pound foolish leaders; and or, those rusted on to either side of this ongoing, never ever resolved argument?
Wild fires consume all before them, except underground services. Grade 5-6-7-8 cyclones, can destroy most buildings and those sheltering in them?
But those sleeping in boam homes, can sleep safe in their beds untroubled, but particularly, if their essential services, water, sewerage, gas or electricity are delivered by underground means.
How many times are we going to rebuild roads, rail links and bridges, at great and increasing cost to the community, before we/they get the message and do it right once or the first time?
Rhrosty.

Luciferase,
Thank you for that link, this one.
http://www.tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/

Check where the big red arrows appear in the Gulf of Mexico, then see that the algae ridden dead zone is right there also. I think it is the biggest dead zone in the world. More on it via Google.
http://earthsky.org/earth/dead-zone-in-gulf-of-mexico-twice-as-large-as-in-2012

Algae, warm water, higher sea level in that area but not globally all at the same time.

I guess we should feel sorry for the warmers as the world turns its back on them, well at least the last remnants of the EU warmers.

This weeks selection of news on Europe is something we won’t hear about from the ABC or Fairfax, but that’s their and their readers problem.

It no longer matters what the UNFCCC/IPCC come up with, they are done.

CO2 credits anyone?

Putin Threatens To Turn Off The Gas - The Daily Telegraph, 11 April 2014

Europe’s New Energy Policy: More Coal, More Gas, More Shale, More LNG, More Wind - Reuters, 11 April 2014

Ukraine Shifts To Coal After Russian Gas Price Hike - Agence France Presse, 5 April 2015

EU Commission Announced End Of Green Energy Subsidies - EurActiv, 10 April 2014

Times Leader: Energy Security Is Now Europe’s Top Priority - The Times, 11 April 2014

Amid Showdown With Russia, Calls Rise In Europe To Start Fracking - The Washington Post, 8 April 2014

Reality Check: CO2 Emissions Have increased Since 2011 Despite Germany’s $140bn Green Energy Transition - The Daily Caller, 10 April 2014