mhaze, since last writing in relation to ExxonMobil, the situation has become more serious for them. The Attorney General from New York according to Inside Climate News had ExxonMobil under investigation for twelve months, a subpoena to obtain documentation and scientific research has been presented to ExxonMobil.

maze, more than just documentation was provided by the series of articles Inside Climate News presented in relation to ExxonMobil.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/will-the-tobacco-strategy-work-against-big-oil?intcid=mod-yml

First sentences from reference:

"According to InsideClimate News, the office of New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman had been investigating ExxonMobil for a year before it issued a recent subpoena for “documents on what Exxon knew about climate change and what it told shareholders and the public.” The subpoena compelled ExxonMobil to hand over scientific research and communications about climate change dating back to 1977. "

Reference to Inside Climate News, the series of articles includes film clips ,quotes, interviews and documentation.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

579, do the maths. The sea level has been increasing at a consistent rate of 2.5mm per year for the past 100 years, including the past 25 you and your warmer friends have been panicking. Those are you people's figures. Thats 2.5 centimetres or 1 inch per decade... 10 - 12 inches in a hundred years.

Silly predictions of 3 - 10 metre sea level rises are just plain scaremongering and you have taken the bait, hook, line and sinker.

Sea level rise is not consistent around the world, so your 2.5 cm / decade is after sea level has evened out around the world. America and Canada are experiencing higher sea level because of the Greenland ice melt, which is gaining pace year after year.

Abrupt climate change has happened before and there is no reason for that not to happen again. We are in free-fall now, strong intervention is required, 15 years ago. We are in for one hell of a ride

ConservativeHippie; anything processed by deniers is of doubtful credibility. CSIRO have sea level rise currently at 3.3 ml per year.
Oceans take up 70% of the earth; it takes huge volumes of melt water and much warmth to increase sea level by small increments.

ConservativeHippie, can you guarantee that the recently discovered regression of the huge Greenland glacier Zachary Isstrøm will not have much impact. What about the Jacobshavn glacier, the 5 Pine Island glaciers and Totem glacier; can you provide an absolute guarantee that their breakdown will have no impact on sea level rise? Glaciologists are stating these glaciers have been undermined from underneath through water action.

If you can provide a guarantee, please provide scientific evidence that the professional glaciologists are wrong.

http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_decades.html

2015 looks like being the warmest year on record in spite of the fact that our sun has been in a waning (cooling) phase since the mid seventies. (NASA) Hello!

Green advocates waffle on about renewables, when all we need to decarb the economy is clean energy, preferably in forms that are both cheaper or on par with coal and able to provide peak power!

And these probably include very broad scale solar thermal, very local thorium energy that comes in at around half the cost of coal due to the very local nature of the transmission which almost eliminates transmission line losses as well as distribution losses.

And then we could include very local methane manufacture via vey local digestors digesting all our biological waste, then using bladder stored methane to power up ceramic fuel cells that also supply free hot water and on demand domestic power for less than quarter of what we pay now, the savings able to be ploughed into increased discretionary spending and or savings/household debt reduction!

And don't we need some of that now!?

I could talk about clean coal but that would require significant investment in very broad scale very adjacent algae/alternative fuel production along with essential government involvement as the principal investor, and we just don't have pollies that are that pragmatic or knowledgeable, just a whole heap of ones with their eyes fixed on the prize? i.e. Government for its own sake not what you might do with it!

And couldn't some of our industries use some half priced industrial energy, like energy intensive aluminium and iron smelting; and robotized car assembly/manufacture/ship and sub building?

Something not able to be affordably accomplished by part time solutions like wind or solar voltaic!

Simply put, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by decarbing our economy, with solutions that more than halve the cost of industrial energy!

And with that and long overdue real tax reform, send a fair dinkum open for business sign to the high tech industries of the entire world!
Rhrosty.

Excellent article, Michael. Another point in relation to climate change, is that the UN defined it as change in climate which was human-caused. There is no science to show that there is any measurable human effect on climate. The human effect is trivial, and not measurable, and as the fraud promoters on OLO have constantly demonstrated, the only basis for assertion of human caused global warming, is dishonesty This has been demonstrated repeatedly by ant, Max Puce, and other fraud supporters.
They have the baseless temerity to use the term “denier”, when they have no science to deny.
They refer to laboratory science which has been demonstrated does not produce the results in nature, or global warming would not have ceased almost 20 years ago, when the “science” supported by the UN showed that the CO2 in the atmosphere would cause global warming.
Will mikk give us a link to science to support his false assertions?