Max, when you repeat a lie you are lying. Each time you repeat the 97% lie you are lying again

"Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
Just to remind you that the assertions by fraud promoters like yourself, about carbon dioxide, have no validity, here is what a scientist says:” "However, our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails."
Bob Carter http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ZUVPX02KD1UHZQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/08/nrclimate08.xml&page=2
There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
As you have demonstrated on this thread, you have no grasp of the science. Your assertions are not just dishonest, but stupid and ignorant, because of your inability to assimilate science.

Max,

Really! Did you even read the Nordhaus article?

What you were trying to show was that there was a scientific base to the claim that any rise over 2c would be dangerous or catastrophic. What you found was a paper from 1975, by an economist which doesn't mention the rises being dangerous. Sheeesh!!

The paper doesn't say anything close to what you hope it says, which you should have known had you read it. IT doesn't use the words dangerous or catastrophic or any similar words. All its doing is saying that if we want to keep temperatures in the range of the past 10000 yrs then this is what we need to do.

The 2c figure beloved of the we're-all-gunna-die crowd is a 2c rise from 1850. The 2c-3c figure mentioned in the paper is from 1975 ie 2.7c from 1850. So even there the paper doesn't go close to saying what you think it says.

Its good that you are reading non-approved stuff. You should read more Nordhaus - particularly his papers which demolished the economic basis of the Stern Report.

The bottom line is this. There is a agreement of sorts that temperatures have rise since 1850 and that some portion of that is caused by man. That's it. That's the full extent of the consensus. There is no consensus about what the future holds. There is no consensus about what should be done now. There is no consensus that the purported rises will occur or that, if they do, they will be dangerous. No consensus.

Now I know you'll come back with some new inanity but I will leave you alone. I prefer to debate with someone who has a clue.

Apologies Mhaze, you appear to think I addressed this post to you when it was to Leo Lane. Leo jumped in with his usual brand of insultingtrolling, and I replied in like manner. I hope you did not think I was addressing it to you. (Although some of the NASA links about the DANGERS of a warmer world are also pertinent to our own conversation).

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18621#332192

Mhaze, to continue: in 1988 Dr James Hansen warned Congress that a warmer world would be dangerous…

>>But Hansen didn't offer Congress a definition of what constituted dangerous climate change. 

So in 1990 a team of researchers from the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) took it upon themselves to try and answer that question.
In a report looking at the potential impacts of of rising greenhouse gas emissions, they discussed a number of ways scientists could measure the world's efforts to limit climate change. They suggested curbing sea level rise or restricting the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as two options. Another was to use global warming as a guide for where to set an overarching limit.
Based on scientific understanding at the time, SEI suggested that to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, a limit should be set at two degrees. But, the report warned, the higher the temperature rise, the bigger the risks from climate change.
"Temperature increases beyond 1.0°C may elicit rapid, unpredictable, and non-linear responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem damage," the report said, suggesting there is nothing necessarily 'safe' about a two degree limit.”<<
http://www.skepticalscience.com/2-degrees-history.html

But for a really old summary, here’s the 1958 Bell Science Hour starring Dr Frank C Baxter and Richard Carlson. It’s only 1:18, and shows how early the ‘alarmist’ science really is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg

And there isn't a National Academy of Science that doubts any of it!

"Apologies Mhaze, you appear to think I addressed this post to you when it was to Leo Lane. "

Oh OK. I think it was the fact that you started the post with the salutation "Hi Mhaze," that confused me.

Apologies Mhaze, you appear to think I addressed this post to you ... (then explanatory text and link).
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18621#332192

I just assumed by the tone of your post that you had thought *both* previous posts applied to you. Obviously not. You just don't accept new data when it doesn't conform to your world view, like James Hansen's findings and everything else I supplied in this link.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18621#332227

But from my layperson's perspective and the little I've read on it, it seems the actual climate sensitivity seems to still be being debated. 2 degrees may have been a benchmark in one iteration of the science, but of course, science, unlike denialist dogma, evolves. It may be that the accumulating evidence is that the climate is far more sensitive, and limits like 350ppm or even 1.5 degrees may become the new benchmark. Want certainty? Go join a cult. But science evolves with the data, and while 2 degrees may have been the initial rule of thumb, climate is one of the hardest things we've ever studied and new data indicates the planet is cooking right now.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Well Max, I'll leave you to work out who you are talking to and what you mean by what you write. I can't follow it and I suspect neither can you.

But just a few points:

* the issue I raised that you sought to disavow was that there is no consensus that the future temperatures will be dangerous or catastrophic. Finding papers from the 1970s by a (highly regarded) economist doesn't cut it. Nor does alluding to vague assertions by one of your gurus (Hanson). There is some consensus about the past but none about what the future holds or what we should do about it. Running around asserting that the science is on your side in regards to the future is so much cant.

* climate sensitivity is completely irrelevant as regards this issue. I suspect you don't know what it means. Kind hearted as I am I'll give a quick explanation. Generally climate sensitivity refers to the estimated increase in temperatures as a result of a doubling of CO2e if nothing else changes (ie ignoring feedbacks). At the moment the ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) is calculated to be somewhere between 1c to 4.5c. Most studies put it between 1 - 2c. It says nothing about how dangerous or otherwise any of those purported changes (if they occur) may be.

Remember this is for a doubling of CO2e. Since 1850 we've only increased CO2e by 45% so along way to go to a doubling. My view is we'll never get there which is one reason I'm not concerned about the scare.