imacentristmoderate meet runner, i think he is in your corner not ours!

Runner as silly as it is can you please point to a book about evolution that says "Cats produce dogs"?

Peter Lang: I've said it before you've have the whole of climate change licked , can you please move on to cancer or something. One sweep of your mind you'd have to whole field worked out the the answer/cures would flow from you like the water of the Nile.

Seeing as Runner introduced the topic of evolution why not try these references which could collectively be titled You Say You Want Some Evolution
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/ScientificProof/evolutionmansacrificeworld.html
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/ScientificProof/fiveevolutionarystatesoftrueman.html
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/ScientificProof/universelaughingmatter.html

Suse,
Since neither the article nor any other post mentioned the deity your polemic is rather superfluous. But you've done a marvelous job of destroying an argument no one made. Or were you just trying to avoid the point?

"Cats still don't produce dogs".
Anyone you thinks this is an argument against evolution clearly understand that theory in the same way as a 1 yr old understands Linear A. Fair dinkum, where do these people come from!

The author isn't making claims that he's a scientist. If you notice all the text in the article with hyperlinks, you'll see that the author is refering to findings from scientists.

All those here asserting that scientists say this and scientists say that just don't get it. Which scientists? These are not a homogenous group. There is significant dispute among scientists on this issue. But I understand the impulse to simply refuse to think for yourselves and to rely on the claims of some that this fabled beast called 'Science' says xyz.

A Royal Commission won't work and won't happen. This is a government which refused to even inquire into claims that the BOM had fudged some temperature records so its not about to look into the validity of alarmist claims. Even if it did and even if this RC found against alarmism, it would prove nothing and mean nothing.

* Has the climate changed/warmed over the past 170yrs? Yes. And I'd venture that a vanishingly small number of scientist, and none that I'd take notice of, dispute that.

* Is there agreement as to the extent of the change? Not really although again the (vast?) majority of experts involved would accept a number between 0.7 and 1 degree C.

* Was the rise caused by man? Again the vast majority of experts would say that some portion was caused by man's emissions. But the percentage is again heavily disputed.

* Has the rise been detrimental to man? Again some dispute but its difficult to argue that things are worse now than in 1850.

But the important issues are the future. some scientists seek to make predictions about where we'll be in 50/100/200/1000 years. But how good are those predictions? So far they've been abysmal.
This is where the real issue lays. Alarmism, which the author wants to put in the dock, sees things going downhill from next tuesday week. Skeptics are either in the camp that says that most warming was caused by natural effects and these will or already have reversed so nothing to worry about, or the camp that says that the warming will not be all that bad and probably beneficial.
(Or that we don't know enough to decide either way).

Something to ponder. Today Canberra-based think tank Global Carbon Project announced that emissions feel in 2015 as compared to 2014.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-08/china-a-key-factor-in-global-emissions-fall-in-2015/7009360
Which of these fabled 'scientists' predicted that? And if they didn't see it coming one year out, how do they and we know that they have the slightest understanding of where emissions will be in 2100. And if they don't know that, how can they know what the temperatures will be in 2100.

My pet theory is that the whole thing will eventually blow over because emissions will decline, or stop rising around 2035 as renewables and other non-fossil fuel energy sources become competitive with coal/oil without the need for subsidy and that this will happen irrespective of what governments do

The carpet has all but been pulled from under anthropogenic climate change deniers.
ExxonMobil have repudiated the policy of the Republican Party in relation to their denier policy.

ExxonMobil indicate that dangerous temperatures that scientists have been commenting on should be accepted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/even-exxonmobil-says-climate-change-is-real-so-why-wont-the-gop/2015/12/06/913e4b12-9aa6-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/07/3728921/exxonmobil-warns-catastrophic-global-warming/

The first sentences from ThinK Progress:

"It’s a Through-The-Looking-Glass world. The Washington Post reports Sunday that ExxonMobil has a far saner view of global warming than the national Republican party.
Fred Hiatt, the paper’s centrist editorial page editor, drops this bombshell:
With no government action, Exxon experts told us during a visit to The Post last week, average temperatures are likely to rise by a catastrophic (my word, not theirs) 5 degrees Celsius, with rises of 6, 7 or even more quite possible."

mhaze,

" * Has the rise been detrimental to man? Again some dispute but its difficult to argue that things are worse now than in 1850.
"

Please provide persuasive evidence to support that assertion.