Craig Minns asks
"Can anybody tell me what the negative consequences might be of treating human induced climate change as real,"
The simple answer is no. Who can predict the future? On that point though if the sunspot count really is the best clue to the future climate then the global ice age is going to come on fast and we have been preparing for the opposite. The obvous outcome of that would be less chance to aviod world war three as refugees from Europe flood into Syria. So my best guess is that the climate scam will bring on all out nuclear Armageddon followed by cannabalism and disease in the frozen remains until abiotic hydrocarbons burst up and cover all the corpses.

Jennifer, I'm sure you know as well as I do what was insulting about your response, so let's not bee disingenuous. You are right to say my questions weren't tightly framed, they are simple questions on a public forum after all. It is to be hoped that good faith prevails in such an environment, allowing proper discussion to proceed, although it is obvious that is rarely the case on this particular site.

To clarify:

1. Leaving aside the question of whether human induced climate change is real or not, what are the costs of taking mitigation action (reducing fossil fuel consumption, etc) in the assumption that it is real and what are the benefits?

2. Leaving aside the question of whether human induced climate change is real or not, what are the costs of taking no mitigation action in the assumption that it is not real and what are the benefits?

Craig,

With due respect, if we don't have a proper understanding of the physical mechanisms (what I mean is, if catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is little more than a myth -- as I suggest in the article that begins this thread) what on Earth are we going to take action against?

Craig, Let me assure you, we can and should react to human induced climate change as if it were indeed real, regardless of whether or not it is! And for sound economic reasons alone!

Such as the rollout of alternative energy options like cheaper than coal thorium! Can in a publicly supplied cost only scenario, provide all the power you need for you home and transport options for a dollar a year, for one hundred years!

Can and will lift billions out of poverty, where when the minimum wage traverses $7500 per, population numbers will stabilize at around 2.5 children per fertile couple. Replacement only and when it rises to around 5-6,000 per stabilizes at around 1 child per couple. (Professor Hargreaves, harvard) See TEDxCopenhagen on U tube.

This 50's molten salt technology needs no pressure containment vessels that could rupture under duress, and are walk away safe!

Have a butchers at TEDx to see chapter and verse evidence, history, blueprints and diagrams.

Oh for energy that cost the average householder a dollar a year? What would that do for our manufacture, transport, irrigation, desalination and recycling options? Exactly, turbocharged economic overdrive and costs of living driven below the floor!

Ditto all production, processing and transport costs! It'd mean affordable power for the direct steel production process invented in this country and the lowest costing steel/smallest possible carbon footprint exported to the world, possibly as finished steel based products!

Or given aluminum is congealed electricity, as much of that as we could make and export as planes, trains and what have you.

It means cost effective titanium and cobalt smelting, with costs reduced to the point where we can compete more than effectively with any nation on earth!

And reduce the cost of building a two lane shipping canal through the dead centre, to much more than just feasible!

There's absolutely nothing to fear here, except for foreign fossil fuel suppliers and or foreign owned coal fired power! Even there, a competent businessman will know when to cut his losses and get out!? Alan B.

Jennifer, I don't need to have a fire burning on my lounge room carpet to assess the relative costs and benefits of allowing one to burn unchecked if it should happen. In order to work out whether my proposed mitigation plan is worth the effort of implementing it, I also need to know what the cost of doing nothing is. Simply relying on someone telling me that my fireplace is cinder-proof and therefore no fire can possibly occur is not a wise option

In other words, whether there is a fire or not is irrelevant in this case, provided I know what one is and its consequences if it should happen to occur in my lounge room.

The topic of human induced climate change is not new. By all means argue about the details of the science if you wish, but if you assume that is the only argument to have, then you are mistaken. A more important discussion is about whether the steps taken to reduce the flows of carbon to the atmosphere are a net positive or negative in economic terms when compared with the status quo. If it turns out they are a net positive, then the argument about the science becomes moot to a large extent. On the other hand, if they are a net negative, then the question of whether there is a real risk that needs addressing may be an important one.

FWIW, I am of the view that climate is a complex dynamic system that is not yet properly understood and probably won't be for several decades at least. Arguing about it is equivalent to the arguments about the reality of quantum mechanics in 1923.

Craig,
Unfortunately it seems there’s been a misunderstanding between you and Jennifer. Better perhaps if you had sought clarification from her? I confess that in the context of incessant abuse towards her from several of the regulars here, that in fact I was uncertain where you were coming from.

That aside, there’s no simple answer to your questions because of too many complex facets (and only 350 words allowed). For instance Europe has faced big hikes in consumer fuel energy costs and huge public expenditure in subsidies for renewable energy schemes with very poor outcomes. Spain is a basket-case and Germany is withdrawing and planning new coal-fired plants. South Australia received global attention recently from failures in supply/costs caused by renewables failures. The UK with critically marginal capacity may be in danger of power outages during coming winters that may result in thousands of deaths.

Oppositely, if for instance climate change research were discontinued, universities would have financial difficulties because huge grant monies would be lost and thousands of scientists around the world would immediately become unemployed. (That is not an ideological view but a statement of fact)

On the other hand, some sceptics have claimed trillions of $ would be saved that could be better used for potentially more important concerns such as poverty and disease. There are also some potentially very serious neglected risks; failure of electronics including on essential satellites and Earthly power supplies from big solar flares if orientated towards Earth. (Look up Carrington Event 1859 telegraph failures)….or nasty new viruses, etcetera.

BTW you advised Dr Marohasy: “You might consider yourself a crusader for truth in science, but I suggest to you… …is possibly the most eloquent statement you could have made about the sincerity of your own motives”. Are you assuming she has an insincere agenda? If so, I’ve no clue why.

I hope you’re not influenced by your personal views on the politics of the One Nation Party (which I might share), but that is irrelevant to the scientific issues, even if the senator exaggerated on some. (Whoops 341 words)