Still arguing AGW ?
Doesn't matter whether it is true or not.
The IPCC models have the wrong fossil inputs, they are too high.
We will have to change to some new energy regime before any rise comes about.

Dear Peter Lang,

Humans have inhabited the world for approximately 200,000 years and in our current form for well over 100,000. There is solid evidence showing the biggest contributor for us having been able to develop into modern civilisations has been a period of relatively stable weather lasting just over the last 13,500 years. Some call it the Eden period or the 'Long Summer'. It allowed us to move from hunter gatherers to agrarian lifestyles.

Sure there have been warmer periods and most certainly colder, but this is the level that happens to suit my species and I'm fond of it.

I've made the point many times, if maintaining this level meant shoveling coal into dirty power stations to stave off a fresh ice age I would be there shoveling with the best of them. But the best evidence, which you seem not to dispute, is that the world in indeed warming. The rate is spectacular and the future is at best uncertain and at worst very bleak indeed.

You sir are happy playing dice with my species. Thankfully you are very much in the minority as more and more countries take action. You just need to get out of the way.

Steele Redux> "You sir are happy playing dice with my species. Thankfully you are very much in the minority as more and more countries take action. You just need to get out of the way."

Silly scaremongering. And it's you who is in the minority (with the less than 1% of world population). It's the gullible few who believe the scaremongering of alarmists and unquestioningly accept the nonsense put out by those people. Less than 1% of the world's population view wasting money on climate policies is where they want money spent. But gullible ideologues like yourself think you know better than the >99% of the world population who don't agree with you. If you think the 99% is wrong, then provide evidence of 73 million people (1%) who would vote for wasting the money. BTW, the UN recently ran a pole and >7 million people responded - they rated climate change the least important program to spend money on.

Your comment about the relatively stable temperatures during the Holocene, is not relevant. Humans live from the poles to the tropics. Life (food) grows better in warmer climates. Sea level rise is a trivial cost. Any global warming that does occur will warm the high latitudes much more than the low latitudes. This is all good. You don't understand that a 1% change in temperature and heat is not threatening. Even your bible, IPCC AR5, has back pedaled on the impacts. And the AR5 authors couldn't even agree to give the best estimate of ECS, because increasingly the empirical evidence is showing that the estimates based on models is overstating ECS by nearly a factor of 2. The basis for your beliefs are falling apart.

Cooling may be catastrophic, but warming isn't. And GHG emissions are reducing the probability of the next abrupt cooling.

You simply don't have a rational argument. Go and catch up, or remain a 'flat earther'

Hasbeen said;
I used to wonder how a successful society could quite quickly
collapse. How for example, could the Roman Empire collapse so quickly?

Joeseph Trainter in "The Collapse of Complex Societies" said that it
was caused by diminishing returns.
In Romes case declining output from silver mines that needed more and
more slaves, then the silver to pay the army declines and soldiers
left the army. Rome lost control of the remoter provinces.

Gail Tveberg on Resilience web site has proposed the same cause ie
diminishing returns.

Even remote history has lessons.

Sound familiar ?

Bazz,

Those pushing for carbon tax and renewable energy targets are pushing for diminishing returns. I just posted this on another web site, so I'll post it here too:

The Australian Government’s 2014 review of the Renewable Energy Target (RET) found:

"The effect of the RET on economy-wide employment … was considered in modelling by Deloitte … which found that an average of 5,000 full-time jobs would be created to 2030 if the RET was abolished" http://webarchive.nla.gov.au/gov/20150401030326/https://retreview.dpmc.gov.au/321-employment

The Deloitte Access Economics modelling report says (p2):

"… abolishing the RET results in an increase in GDP over 2014 and 2030 of $28.8 billion in NPV terms. The effective cost of carbon abatement to GDP due to the RET is estimated to be $103 per tonne of CO2-e — more than four times the carbon tax.

• The rise in industry output also leads to an increase in labour demand, with an average of 5,000 full-time jobs created over the modelling period if the RET is completely abolished. Over the same time horizon, household consumption is estimated to rise by $20.5 billion should the RET be completely removed. "

The red line on this chart shows that optimal carbon pricing would be detrimental for all this century: http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/27/cross-post-peter-lang-why-the-world-will-not-agree-to-pricing-carbon-ii/

From the delusional world of Steele Reflux:” the best experts have predicted great harm.”.
Who are these “best experts”, and why are you the only one who knows about them, Steele?
We know the failures, like Hansen, and the IPCC. Surely they are not the best that the climate fraud-backers, like yourself, have to offer?
But you are incapable of reading a graph, aren’t you Steele, so how would you identify an expert?