continued
12. Planning for adaptation (to address and prepare for impacts) and mitigation
(to reduce future climate change, for example by cutting emissions) is becoming
more widespread, but current implementation efforts are insufficient to avoid
increasingly negative social, environmental, and economic consequences."
Unquote

Peter
What is there not to understand ? increasing levels of GHGs particularly Co2 will and have raised global temperatures, and if the amount of CO2 in the air exceeds 520 PPM we will all be in deep poo.

The solution is obvious burn less fossil carbon.

It is up to the policy makers and economists to work out the best way to do this.

What is not acceptable is too just ignore the problem and rush headlong into a crisis which we have both the knowledge and ability to avoid.

Warmair,

>”What is there not to understand ? increasing levels of GHGs particularly Co2 will and have raised global temperatures, and if the amount of CO2 in the air exceeds 520 PPM we will all be in deep poo.”

No one has answered the key questions and provided the relevant information to make a persuasive case “we will all be in deep poo”. These questions need to be answered, not continually avoided. Simply repeating the mantra of irrelevant arguments is the opposite of persuasive. Can you (or anyone else) provide considered answers to the questions I posed in comment at 29 April 2014 6:11:21 PM?

>”The solution is obvious burn less fossil carbon. “

That is not the main priority for energy policy. It can only be achieved if consumer requirements can be achieved as well.

>” It is up to the policy makers and economists to work out the best way to do this.”

Progress is blocked by the ‘Progressives’ who want/demand irrational policies that suit their ideological agendas.

>” What is not acceptable is to just ignore the problem and rush headlong into a crisis which we have both the knowledge and ability to avoid.”

Same response. Progress is blocked by the ‘Progressives’. Rational policies that could deliver all the requirements and reduce emissions are blocked by the ‘Progressives’.

Requirements are:

1. Energy security (over the long term and especially through periods of economic or military disruptions).

2. Reliability of supply (over periods of minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years)

3. Low cost energy - energy is a fundamental input to everything we have; if we increase the cost of energy we reduce the rate of improvement of human well-being.

Policies must deliver the above three essential requirements.

Second order requirements are:

4. Health and safety - nuclear is the safest of all electricity generation technologies and would avoid about 2-3 million fatalities per year by 2050 if it replaced coal world wide, so it should be a no-brainer to strongly support nuclear for this reason.

5. Nuclear is relatively environmentally benign compared with other alternatives.

This CSIRO calculator shows that, even in Australia where we have cheap, high quality coal near the main population centres and where nuclear power is strongly opposed, nuclear would be by far the cheapest way to reduce emissions: http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Energy/MyPower.aspx

Compare options with different proportions of electricity generation technologies (move the sliders to change the proportions of each technology). The below results show the change in 2050 compared with now for real electricity prices and CO2 emissions.

1. 80% coal, 10%gas, 10% renewables: electricity bills increase = 15% and emissions increase = 21%

2. 0% coal, 50%gas, 50% renewables: electricity bills increase = 19% and emissions decrease = 62%.

3. 0% coal, 30%gas, 10% renewables, 60% nuclear: electricity bills increase = 15% and emissions decrease = 77%.

4. 0% coal, 20%gas, 10% renewables, 70% nuclear: electricity bills increase = 17% and emissions decrease = 84%.

5. 0% coal, 10%gas, 10% renewables, 80% nuclear: electricity bills increase = 20% and emissions decrease = 91%.

Conclusion: nuclear is the least cost way to make significant reductions in the emissions intensity of electricity.

But nuclear power is strongly opposed by those who would like to be called ‘Progressives’.

ant, the NCA report which you quote from so uncritically and so faithfully is just rubbish. I'm not going to point by point this rubbish; I and the world are sick of the lies, exaggerations and fabrications of AGW scientists. Roy Spencer has done a good critique, as has Judith Curry and here is another one:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/the-national-climate-assessment.html

Your poor Inuit may or may not be suffering due to climate change but one thing is certain that climate change is not AGW.

Agronomist., I acknowledge the science

You and ant fail to do so, and support the AGW fraud.

Professor Bob Carter gives a brilliant overview:
“
.. the key question concerns the magnitude of warming caused by the rather small 7 billion tonnes of industrial carbon dioxide that enter the atmosphere each year, compared with the natural flows from land and sea of over 200 billion tonnes.
Despite well over twenty years of study by thousands of scientists, and the expenditure of more than $100 billion in research money, an accurate quantitative answer to this question remains unknown.
Scientists who advise the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) worry that a doubling of carbon dioxide over pre-industrial levels will cause warming of between 3 and 6 deg. Celsius, whereas independent scientists calculate that the warming for a doubling will be much less - somewhere between about 0.3 and 1.2 deg. Celsius.
Meanwhile, the scientific evidence now overwhelmingly indicates that any human warming effect is deeply submerged within planet Earth's natural variations of temperature.
Importantly, no global warming has now occurred since 1997, despite an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide of 8%, which in turn represents 34% of all the extra human-related carbon dioxide contributed since the industrial revolution.
Few of these facts are new, yet until recently the public have been relentlessly misinformed that human-caused global warming was causing polar bears to die out, more and more intense storms, droughts and floods to occur, the monsoons to fail, sea-level rise to accelerate, ice to melt at unnatural rates, that late 20th century temperature was warmer than ever before and that speculative computer models could predict the temperature accurately one hundred years into the future.
It now turns out that not one of these assertions is true."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/report-gives-the-truth-about-climate-at-last/story-fni0cwl5-1226720428390
It is wonderful to have an honest scientist , who tells the truth.
AGW is a fraud