Don,

Another thought-provoking post. Thanks.

"If it takes a century or two to teach the 2C target, I don't think it's much of a problem, because on the evidence a warmer world is better for nearly all living things. "

I agree. An interesting paper by Canadian economist Ross McKitrick has just been released. It summarises the recent evidence that climate sensitivity is probably much lower than the models use, and the damages of GHG emissions are probably lower than the models project. Regarding the 2 C target the report says:

"Over the whole of the post-1900 interval, the warming trend is just under
0.075 °C/decade, or about 0.75 °C per century. At this rate it would take
about 267 years to get to the 2 °C target level of warming that many world
leaders say needs to be avoided.", p6: http://www.fraserinstitute.org/uploadedFiles/fraser-ca/Content/research-news/research/publications/climate-policy-implications-of-the-hiatus-in-global-warming.pdf

spindoc, general ignorance is one thing, but failing to read what was written is surely something you can do something about.

My post did not state that there has been a failure of “CAGW”, in fact it did not reference CAGW at all. My comment was that the target of maintaining the global temperature at no more than 2 degrees above the pre-industrial average was most likely doomed to failure. And that likely failure can be blamed squarely on the lack of political actions. Which of course means the Earth will most likely end up with more than 2 degrees temperature increase.

As a result of your quite spectacular failure to read what I wrote, the things you suggest I do are of course complete nonsense.

Phillip S “Who is going to stop the Volcanoes from raising the temperature?”

Volcanoes do not increase the global temperature. They decrease it by putting sunlight absorbing particulates into the atmosphere http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v330/n6146/abs/330365a0.html

Peter Lang, that quote from Ross McKitrick amply shows why McKitrick is an economist and not knowledgeable about climate science.

‘morning Madam Poirot,

You are such a joy to play with. Your hypocrisy, diversions and rhetoric were always bound to trip you up. Such a pleasure to see you digging huge holes and then jumping into them and start digging again.

So, rather than acknowledge your diversion from CAGW, you still want to talk about “medical science” and Ebola?

OK.

You say << But from here it looks like you judge the veracity of climate "science" based on the action/inaction of governments, glad that's not the case with medical "science" and something like Ebola>>.

Oh really? Now lets just have a little look at your Unicorn shall we?

Some recent alarmism that does not included either the most recent alarmist threats of either the Ice Age or CAGW but hey, look at what tops the list? One of Madame Poirot’s “science based” Medical issues.

DDT and cancer (Silent Spring) 1962
Electromagnetic fields and Childhood Cancer 1979
Acid Rain in the U.S. 1974
Population growth and famine (Club of Rome) 1968
Natural resource shortages and economic collapse
(Ehrlich & Ehrlich 1974)
Uncontrolled reproduction and degeneration (Eugenics) 1883

So what happened? Well it was demonstrated by alarmism that DDT used in Africa to kill mosquito’s was carcinogenic and that the UN should ban its use. Based on the “Medical Science” to which Poirot refers of course. The UN did ban its use and the result was millions of dead Africans from malaria outbreaks. Oops!

But hey, this was in the very best interests of Poirot’s “medical science”. Which is just like “Climate Science” apparently.

It gets even better. Poirot’s Climate Science and Medical Science have a couple of very interesting common links.

Now let me just think, it was the UN and err, the same Senator was behind both these “sciences”, if I could just remember his name, tobacco tycoon, billionaire? Ah yes of course, Al Gore!

What a coincidence Poirot, Al Gore and the UN, now who‘da thunk dat?

Millions of dead Africans, a $Trillions out of the global economy, it just makes you feel so good about your science, hey?

OK you denialists why are you wasting your time (and space on this forum) with your continued nonsense?
You have made your point and with all of the BS that AGW is a huge world wide conspiracy , the confusion in the minds of the proles has finished all chance of acting in time to stop the end result of runaway global warming.
They do not want to hear anything that moves them out of their comfort zone and into the real world so they will side with the likes of the abbott gang to stop any efforts to negate warming.
Well done guys but give it a rest now and sit back and wait for calamity one day.
We are past the point of no return so you have done your job.

Hi Robert,

Point of no return ? With an 18-year pause ? With unstinting technological developments, thanks to capitalism's constant searching for the next big thing ?

Consider this: it does appear that AGW, if it is occurring, is occurring in the Northern Hemisphere rather than in ours. Most of the landmass of the world is in the northern hemisphere. For every degree rise in the NH's temperature, the extent of viable grain-growing moves north by maybe a hundred kilometres. Across Canada and Scandinavia and Russia. By a total of maybe a million square kilometres for every degree rise. A million square kilometres can produce how much grain ? Half a billion tonnes ?

And that's a catastrophe ?!

There was a time when the Vikings were planting grapes in eastern Canada - Vinland, they called it. If it can happen again and in my lifetime, I'll drink to that !

Joe

Damn the climate (torpedos?) full economic growth speed ahead!