Fellow-Agnostic,

I still think you misinterpret Lomborg: as the Arch-Devil Incarnate, he's not praising CO2, demanding more of it; simply that he sees its reduction at the cost of economic development of poor counties as a problem which can wait, solutions to which will probably be found in the process of technological innovation generally. As I think they will, and as you inadvertently conceded.

As for plankton, etc., I vaguely understand that the southern Southern Ocean is now seen again as a giant CO2 sink, taking in 1.5 billion tonnes of CO2 each year. Could it be that the plankton and krill etc. are using CO2 as a food, like plants do ?

I suppose that shows just how ignorant I am :)

Hi again Fellow-Agnostic,

About your declaration that CO2 ".... causes average global temperature to rise to very dangerous levels which will produce very severe climate conditions characterized by droughts, heat-waves and fires which life-forms, animal and plant alike, can not survive."

I'm assuming you're not going to claim that the Californian fires are a result of global warming ? That you are a bit better than that ?

Good. Now, why do you think global warming will, on balance, create more droughts ? With most of the Earth's surface covered by water, why not assume that global warming will massively increase evaporation from the oceans and heavier rainfall ? Isn't that supposed to be happening in our North ?

Global warming will/does extend growing seasons, so crops can be grown where previously there was simply not enough time for them to mature. How is that a negative ? As well, wouldn't global warming push the potential areas for growing further up into the higher latitudes ? Say, by 100 km for every degree rise ? How is that a negative for, say, Canada or Russia ? Every degree rise, at that rate, would open up perhaps millions of square kilometres for production around the world, wouldn't it ?

Certainly, every degree rise in regions like the Middle East would make life that much more unbearable. But on balance, would winters be MORE bearable in, say, Britain ? Scandinavia ? Russia ? China ? Korea ? Canada ? No more being snowed in across Scotland ? Fewer drunks freezing to death in Moscow ?

There are those of us, thick as two planks, who buck when we suspect some con-job. Being somewhat superior [only one plank thick], I'm not one of those, I do think GW is probably occurring, maybe, and that, on balance it may be having negative consequences, if not now then maybe in the future. But it doesn't help to over-gild the lily.

Joe

Agnostic has been asked on numerous occasions over the years of his support for climate fraud to refer us to science which demonstrates any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
He cannot do so, because the human effect is trivial, and not measurable, so it is not scientifically evidenced. as it would be if the effect could be measured.
Agnostic is aware of this, so his support of the climate fraud, which calls for lowering of human emissions, with no scientific justification, is based purely on his dishonesty.

One thing that puzzles me is why the migrants get on boats and cross
the sea to Greece from Turkey when they could just walk across the
border or perhaps just get the bus from Instanbul to either Greece or
Bulgaria.

Seems to be a very silly thing to do.

Thank you Mike for that display of mendacious dishonesty and snivelling evasion.

There's only one thing you haven't done: established any rational justification for any climate policy.

All anyone needs to know about the so-called "science" that Mike is referring to, is that the global warmists are everywhere using the same completely failed methodology as Mike:
a) assume their conclusion in their premises
b) misrepresent what the data say by self-interested facile biased manipulations - the warmists' corrupt culture of doing this, is what these idiots are calling 'science'
c) seek to confirm rather than to falsify their hypothesis
d) take as proof that other people are saying it - yes, it's literally that bad, isn't it Mike?
e) ignore the established vested interests in the zillions
f) ignore the human evaluations which completely disprove their entire stupid theory
g) act as if they know everything in the world, including how much water should be in the oceans, I mean this amount of stupid hurts
h) treat any question of the truth of their gabblings as a "distraction". When you don't care that what you're saying is untrue, and only want to propagate your ideology, then yes, logic is a distraction I guess.

Why does OLO keep publishing this irritating dishonest twaddle? There is no debate. The warmists have been challenged to justify their argument, and have simply failed to join issue since the very beginning. All they have ever done is what Mike just did, over and over again. It's completely pathetic. He's openly telling us he thinks the truth is irrelevant!

Dear Agnostic of Mittagong.

I have no way of verifying if your statistics on sea ice are accurate or not. For one thing, we have on record the evidence of the boys and girls in the East Anglia Climate Research Institute's fiddling of the figures (Climategate) which tends to suspicion and deep mistrust of climate scientists claims. Scientists are supposed to be above self interest and ideology, but I don't buy that. I still remember the "scientists" that the tobacco companies used to put before the TV cameras who claimed that smoking did not cause cancer.

On the other hand, I can definitely vouch for the incident where an entire ship of scientists went to Antarctica (the Ship of Fools) to prove that sea ice was shrinking, and they got trapped in sea ice that did not even exist 100 years ago.

Faced with choosing between "scientists" claims I do not trust, and the direct evidence from the "Ship of Fools" incident that sea ice is growing, not shrinking, my reasonable assumption is that sea ice is not shrinking.