Oh please Barry, don't you start too.

You have written a good article, and I responded in kind.

Your response seems to give credence to the article in The Conversation. Are you disagreeing with it?

http://theconversation.com/are-you-a-poor-logician-logically-you-might-never-know-33355

No where, I repeat ... no where, have I claimed "catastrophic" as you appear to infer.

There is a way to transition to alternative forms of energy - but it will take time.

Many people would stand idly by like frogs in a pot of slowly heating water. More rational frogs would take proactive measures.

For what it's worth, no scientist claims "the science is settled" but some things are more certain than others.

Quote
“I would love to see a major survey undertaken to ascertain whether climate scientists regard the consequences of warming as likely to be catastrophic, slightly damaging, beneficial, slightly beneficial, or neutral on balance. However, the alarmists would have no interest in supporting such an undertaking.”

Actually the the result of such a survey would be meaningless because first you have to define what level of warming you are referring to, and in any event it is really a question that requires a scientific answer which has in fact been extensively studied.
http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/global-warming/science-and-impacts/global-warming-impacts

As I understand the situation.
A temperature increase of 1 deg C over present levels would create serious problems and would be expensive to adapt too. Above 2 deg C we enter the realm where we would be unable to fully adapt to the new climate leading to a fall in global living living standards. At 3 degs C civilization would be at serious risk of collapse. Beyond those figures we start to consider the extinction of 90% of all life forms and the extinction of humans.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene–Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

<<There is no attempt in any of the surveys to ascertain whether the experts regard the situation as positive or negative, catastrophic or beneficial, neutral or whatever>>

The warmer the better, for their pockets, because they make a living out of it.

DavidK, I could also start my reply by borrowing your phrase: "Oh please David, don't you start too!". But I won't - because I'm not into condescension of others.

We would agree, I think, that scientific progress and technological advancement are good things, and that there should be greater investment in R&D to develop more efficient and affordable energy sources. We would probably disagree as to which alternatives should be funded. I'd certainly favour scrapping entirely any government support for wind power. It would be better spent by Australia joining international efforts on nuclear fusion - or pretty much anything else.

I'm not sure how you think the linked article is relevant to our discussion. You need to explain that, rather than just provide a link.

I agree that there is a consensus on climate change - but it is definitely not one based on the kind of catastrophic scenarios propagated by alarmists such as Tim Flannery - nor on the idea that we are akin to frogs boiling ourselves to death. Nowhere did I previously infer - or even 'appear to infer' - that you are in that category. (BTW, I love the phrase "appear to infer"). However, I now have doubts, in light of the frog metaphor

Barry "I'm not into condescension of others."

Yes you are, Tim Flannery a case in point. However, I agree with you - he is "alarmist".

AGW requires a suite of adaptive and mitigation measures from all governments, captains of industry, businesses, organisations and individuals alike.

More strident progress is required.

DavidK,

Latest post at my blog, 'C21st Left', may be of interest: http://c21stleft.wordpress.com/2014/11/08/breaking-the-climate-deadlock-with-rd