What fanciful hype for the December climate talks!

For realistic commentary, see
http://catallaxyfiles.ozblogistan.com.au/2015/10/14/warming-and-armageddon-the-hype-intensifies/

Raycom, your Catallaxy Files reference is a blog site.
When going to the "About" section this quote came up:

"It is hard to avoid the conclusion that their primary goal is to achieve a puritanical victory against nicotine rather than to save lives."
— David Leyonhjelm

The credibility of anything offered immediately dissipates when quotes such as that are displayed.
Science is promoted by slabs of data, politics employs huge amounts of the stuff expelled by the fundamental orifice of a bull.

Jo Nova, was mentioned in your reference, she was shredded by Lord Deben on the Drum a couple of weeks ago. Jo Nova is a climate change denier; she was supportive of the Australian government's emissions plan being taken to Paris when interviewed on the Drum. Lord Deben pointed out the low point that Australia was coming from. The main point being, Jo Nova was supporting CO2 emissions being controlled.

http://insideclimatenews.org/

Click on the top right hand side...Exxon The Road Not Taken

Information showing that climate change denial was pushed hard from a non scientific flawed base... in the 1970s and 1980s ExxonMobil scientists believed in man created climate change. There are quotes and profiles from some of the ExxonMobil scientists.

Deniers pretty well ignore comments about permafrost thawing (Siberian methane explosions and "drunken trees") or the rate of melting on the surface of the Greenland ice sheet.

Oh dear, ant, I think you rather missed the point I was making ie that the talks in Paris will be just talks and the result will be (as with the PFJ) more talks. Calls for 'action' will be listened to politely and then talked about. They will do little to nothing to reduce CO2 levels in this or any other decade.

Now I get that you've found some documents from the 1980's and think they are a slam-dunk for your prejudices. So let's stipulate that Exxon and indeed, most probably, every other fuel (fossil or otherwise) company was looking at the purported warming post 1975 and evaluating what it meant for their business. That's part of their job. Equally I'd venture they were looking, in 1970, at the purported global cooling and evaluating what it meant for their business. That's part of their job.

I'd also venture that others who would eventually morph into Enron and Solyndra and Pacific Hydro were also looking at the changing climate and looking for the main chance.

But what all these organisations did or didn't do had no effect on the actual climate. The pause for example occurred and would have occurred despite the actions or inactions of the corporate world. I know people like you get all so very excited by the politics and the conspiracy theories but Gaia doesn't care about that. No really, she doesn't.

"An incredible amount of climate science has been completed since the 1980s, metaphorically the arms and legs of deniers have been cut off." (ant)

Yes it has. Yes it has.

There was the climate science around the hockey stick. Oh wait, that was proven wrong.

There was the climate science that found that the arctic would be ice free by 2015. Oh wait, that didn't happen.

There was the climate science that found that parts of New York would be under water by 2015. Oh wait.....

There was the climate science that found that Australia's dams would never fill again and that we needed desal plants aplenty. ummmm!

There was the climate science that found that Oz is way way hotter (a whole 0.09 degrees) that 700 years ago (Gergis et al 2013). Oh wait that turned out to be wrong too.

And so on and so on.

Climate science has made many predictions that have proven to be rubbish. The biggest was what was going to happen to temperatures into the future. They predicted continued and/or accelerated rises in temps. But there has been no rise this century. and they have no idea why.

Yet on such flimsy data, we are asked to upturn western civilisation. No thanks.

ant wrote:""It is hard to avoid the conclusion that their primary goal is to achieve a puritanical victory against nicotine rather than to save lives."
— David Leyonhjelm

The credibility of anything offered immediately dissipates when quotes such as that are displayed. "

Leyonhjelm was talking about vaping which has been shown to be perfectly safe and not a danger in the slightest in terms of second-hand smoke (of which there isn't any). Your ignorance is profound.

Vaping of nicotine is banned because it can be, not because it should be.

So to clear it up; this is the "LAST Chance" or the next to last Last Chance or the next to, next to Last Chance?

We have had so many I am confused which one it is. Anyway, any modeling that relies on positive feedback in normal range is an oxymoron. Sorry Warmists you're oxymorons.