ant,
THAT'S NOT WHAT WET BULB TEMPERATURE MEANS!

Wet bulb temperature is the effective temperature taking humidity into account. It's measured with a wet bulb thermometer, which is a thermometer kept wet by wet fabric.

A sufficiently high wet bulb temperature can be lethal as it prevents the body cooling itself by perspiration (and by evaporation from the mouth and lungs). But the term "wet bulb temperature" doesn't imply it to be high, let alone lethal.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

ateday,
Population growth is only one contributor to the problem, and not the main one. See http://www.monbiot.com/2009/09/29/the-population-myth/

Not all kinds of steel do have carbon in them. And in Brazil they make steel with charcoal instead of coal. But molten oxide electrolysis is a more efficient process that promises to be a game changer, though it will take a lot more R&D to commercialise it.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

JBowyer,
Tim never said it would never rain. He said it the rain MAY NOT come. Not only are you falsely accusing him of making a definite prediction when he was merely highlighting what was a real possibility at the time, but you are also assuming an unlimited timescale when it's more likely he meant it may not rain before the dams run dry.

Nobody would sell you for ten dollars what others would pay hundreds of thousands for.

And leading by example will achieve nothing if nobody follows you.

Just wondering Runner, is it only 'non-religious people' who predicted global warming/climate change?
Can you show us the proof of that statement, because I think you made that up?

Paris was a political solution to a political problem. Politicians the world over have talked themselves into a corner and needed to find a way out.

It is now virtually impossible for a western politician to express any doubt about the 'fact' that we are all gunna die unless we mend our sinful ways. And non-western politicians are prepared to go along for the ride because there is no downside for them and they might just extract a few extra bucks or get access to a bit of technology out of it.

So what do you do when you scare the populace into thinking there is a real threat when you have no intention of doing anything serious about that threat? You do Paris.

IF you're a developed nation you promise to do what you are already doing and you promise that someone in the future will do something even more. If you're developing (China, India) you promise to think about doing something sometime in the future and ask for some money. If you're undeveloped (Maldives, Tuvalu) you promise to continue whining that you're gunna drown pretty soon now unless you get lots of money even while you continue to build resorts on the very ground you say will be under water if you don't get said money.

End result? Precisely nothing changes but everyone can claim that there's been change and no one dares point out the naked emperor.

If these people really believed that civilisation was under threat they'd be doing (not promising but actually doing) the things that would avert that threat. But those things would be highly unpopular so are avoided like the plague while nice benign 'solutions' are trotted out that will do nothing while appearing to do something.

So what would people who really believed the hype be doing or agitating for? What would the world look like if the tens of thousands who attend Paris were fair dinkum about reducing CO2 to save the world?

* The world would be inundated with fracking mines seeking to replace as much coal with gas as possible
* Every river on the planet would have hydroelectric dams generating clean power.
* Nuclear plants would be popping up all over while unnecessary regulations restricting those plants would be remved so as to get them up and running asap.
* Taxes on petrol for private use and taxes on home electricity would double and then double again. The Greens would be whining about the fall in petrol prices and promising a policy of increased prices for the next election. (of coarse, pollies instead promise lower petrol/electricity prices in direct contradiction of their we're-all-gunna-die message.)
* Private jets would be banned and non-essential overseas travel curtailed.

These and a thousand other petty constraints designed to reduce emissions would be in place or planned if these people truly believed the hype. They don't and they won't mention let alone propose these measures.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H.L. Mencke

Our future is not guaranteed in the slightest, more insight into Greenland ice melt shows ice melt gaining speed and said to be unstoppable. Methane escaping from arctic is 25 times more potent than Co2 in the atmosphere.
We are in for a harsh landing, after 21 years of resistance and do nothing the changes are catching up with us with gusto.

Suseonline

Runner is wrong as you have identified, Katherine Hayhoe is a climate scientist who is quite religious.

http://katharinehayhoe.com