Dick the Dunce. Thanks for all those figures on the record expansion of ice in the Antarctic. I do not know what you meant by them, but at least we know that the article to which you linked us was a fraud-backing lie. That is why I mistook you for a fraud-backer, and am so pleased to hear that you are not.

Unfortunately your style is somehow reminiscent of Agronomist who is a heavily committed fraud-backer. He also throws around numbers trying to convince himself that global warming has not ceased, despite all scientific observations that it has.

These are your words Dick,” By all means, don't believe the reality of global warming, but after reading the following link, go and buy a snorkel and flippers http://m.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/west-antarctic-ice-sheet-melt-unstoppable-pushing-sea-levels-higher-scientists-say-20140513-386en.html.

The evidence is in front of us. “

That certainly sounds like an ignorant fraud-backer, and the article contains the baseless assertion of “human caused global warming”, so thanks for setting things straight.

Truly wish I had more time for playing here because these things are terrific fun but other things have intervened.

Let me dip the toe in though.

Hey Leo and Spindoc, could you be a little more specific about what you mean when you claim the Antarctic sea ice is at record levels?

What does that mean for global warming? What if I told the region around the south pole is currently averaging temperatures nearly 4C above normal? Is that figure something you would accept? And if so would that make you reassess any notion of the Antarctic region being colder than normal?

steele

show us the data supporting your assertion.

For the benefit of all those who still believe in the science behind CAGW, I have a suggestion.

If the science is so compelling, what should happen is that a global body like the UN should form a committee which requires member states to sign binding agreements to cut CO2 emissions, fund research and set RET’s.

That UN committee should then create a UN panel to review all the tax payer funded research each year to determine just how effective the measures have been.

They will also need to establish emissions trading markets so that investors can purchase certificates and sell them for a profit to those countries who fall short of their targets. We could have a market in the USA, say Chicago, one for the UN and one for the EU.

A global renewable energy industry index of say the top 30 renewable industry corporations (call it say RENIXX) can be listed for investment through the worlds largest Banks, super funds and investment Banks. These huge corporations would contract to build the wind farms and solar power stations.

Wealthy land owners can then donate their land for a fee to host the renewable generation. Government can then subsidize the renewable energy corporations to guarantee they make profits.

The really, really neat thing about this global infrastructure is that the Big Banks, Wealthy Investors, the worlds largest industrial corporations, research organizations. wealthy land owners and political elites get to make lots and lots of money, all guaranteed by legislation.

The public get the privilege of paying for all this through their general taxes, through levies on their energy bills and through lost jobs as energy intensive industries close or shift off shore.

All this can be created if the science is credible. If it is not credible, all this infrastructure will simply collapse and the public remnants of the CAGW movement will be left to chatter without purpose on various blogs.

That infrastructure is all gone because your science cannot even convince the global infrastructure created for it in the first place.

But you still debate it posthumously? RIP.

Dear imajulianutter,

More than happy to provide the source to you but first can I have your understanding of spindoc's quote “Antarctic Sea Ice At Record Levels - The Australian, 12 May 2014” ? Do you accept it as factual and substantive? What does it mean in the global warming debate?

And if you do would accept that the area around the South Pole warming nearly 4C above average would be countervailing evidence?

I notice spindoc has dodged the question so it is up to you my friend.

@Imajuluanutter, I don't have an opinion, since I'm not a climatologist. I'm interested, but not opinionated on the topic. My link, as I said, was of interest not of argument. It was a follow-on from an article I read previously about a large iceberg that broke off the Antarctic continent...http://www.scar.org/news/antarctic/. The iceberg story is in the link, amongst other stories. I didn't originally read of it at the link site but in the SMH, but it's the same story.

Here's the issue of adopting an extreme view one way or the other on an issue like the planet's climate, for me anyway...I don't believe we'll truly understand our own planet's processes until we have developed the ability for terraforming other planets, and buggered them up, learning from our mistakes. So to adopt an extreme view either side of the debate strikes me as more of ego than it does of understanding, since I don't believe we yet have that level of knowledge. As it is with viewing the cosmos, scientists are as often amazed at new findings as they are validated with confirmations of theories. So to claim understanding of our own planet smacks of conceit, not understanding, and of having a preconceived opinion and then cherry-picking those that validate that opinion.

So posters advocating such extremism of belief are in effect displaying their own ego and unreasonable-ness in refusing to discuss things calmly. Abuse is the norm at this forum, which is disappointing.

@Leo Lame..."fraud-backer"?!? Did you go to the Fox News school of repetition, abuse and yelling to tell a story? How puerile of you.

Your zealotry only exemplifies the danger that you epitomize...extremism.