Joe

The problem with temperatures rising over pre Industrial levels is that weather patterns become more extreme and unreliable; something farmers do not need. Farmers don't like their live stock drowned or crops ruined.

That is happening now, and will get worse with an increase in themperature.
Warmer oceans and atmosphere means a greater amount of water vapour is in the atmosphere, it being the reason why we are seeing more events where a month's supply of rain falls in a couple of hours.

There are those that deny a dramatic rise in co2 in the atmosphere is anything significant.
Ice core samples from the antarctic show the levels of CO2 at times of climate change or extinctions.
To say co2 is good and needed for growing is correct. like everything there can be to much of a good thing. Trees and plant life is the balance of nature.
The use of fossil fuels with the decline of trees and plant life is compromising nature to the extent of change.
These days we can not blame volcanic action for rises of co2 so to look elsewhere is a good start.
See water temperature rise is undeniable, and doing its best to melt areas of perma frost and undercutting glacial ice. The world is in a greenhouse effect and temperature is rising along with violent storm activity. How much temperature can ocean water take, whatever it is it is not normal.
Nature is uncompromisable, and its your fault.

Hi Ant,

That's strange, SA has had bumper grain crops for the last two years.

World food production has doubled in the last fifty years.

And downpours are not unique to just the last thirty or forty years. Rain tends to fall at irregular intervals, even in Australia, the land of droughts and flooding rains.

Hi Doog,

Why do growers call it the 'greenhouse effect', I wonder ? Because they pump CO2 into greenhouses to stimulate growth ?

I live not far from a beach: when I see some permanent erosion of the beach (and not just seasonal and/or storm-related), I'll start to worry. I'm surprised that you don't mention pacific atolls, the Bangla Desh submergence and the Nile Delta.

I could be mistaken but it seems that the Amazon rainforests are regenerating more quickly than expected. In West Africa, the southern temperate zone is moving bit by bit back up towards the Sahara. So yes, global warming brings better rainfall around the world.

Cheers,

Joe

as a fundamentalist (someone who believes in the fundamentals of Scripture) I much prefer the fundie secularist especially when it comes to the gw farce. To be agnostic is somewhat cowardly. Agnostics usually write so much nonsense never wanting to offend or reach a conclusion. They know their position is not sustainable. Sure there is plenty of room for saying ' I don't know' but the nonsense dealt up by the warmist makes it conclusive that they are coming from a hopelessly flawed faith based narrative.

I have just been off to check all the global temperature measures and the good news is that there has been no warming since 2016. So everyone can not sit back and relax.

As for Mark's article, there is no doubt he is a bit of a dill.

"So one has to ask: why is the debate framed this way? – why is there so much focus on the "debate"?"

Mark, in the scientific realm, there is no debate about climate change. It is accepted that the activities of humans have resulted in increased global temperatures that will continue to rise if nothing is done. The 'debate' is framed the way it is, because there are people who do not want to accept the scientific consensus and so think it should be debated. It is a classic delaying tactic, known in politics as the filibuster.

"It's as if we've completely suppressed a third option: agnosticism, the often-noble but under-employed position of not-knowing."

Mark, no-one is forcing you to take a position on climate change. You can choose to look at the evidence and consider the conclusions of the experts in climate science, or you can just bumble along being ignorant about it all. What you are going to be forced to do (at least in the collective) is make a decision. 'Are we going to continue to increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and risk even more warming, or are we going to choose to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and reduce that risk?'

And frankly, I don't care one bit whether you accept the scientific consensus, reject it or remain agnostic. Your wishes about the 'debate' are irrelevant to what the science demonstrates. However, some action has to be taken. The electricity infrastructure in Australia demands that a decision is taken.

Reflux says:” to be calling on me to provide yet again something for you to completely ignore is not a sport that I consider worth the effort right now”
The request for Reflux to reference any science which demonstrates a measurable human effect on climate, is a continual one, and Reflux has never supplied any such reference.
There is no science which shows any measurable human effect on climate.
Reflux’s continual delusional state accounts for his inability to tell the truth, and to make ridiculous assertions that he has referenced science which is non-existent.He has never referenced any science because there is no science to support the climate fraud which he backs.
He further asserts:” Meanwhile major companies and insurers around the world are demanding action from governments on global warming. These are not people swayed by emotion rather by seriously assessing the risks to their businesses if inaction continues”
He gives no reference to a source of this baseless nonsense, which is no doubt another product of his delusional, truth deficient state of mind.