While ever we continue to take no meaningful action at all and continue the out of control rabbit like population growth policies of this bunch of vandalistic ferals in Canberra we never will meet any emission target.

The “..  latest greenhouse gas emissions..” are as boring as bat droppings and totallly insignificant when compared with the emissions of countries like China and India. By the look of him, Graeme McLeay is well past doctoring, let alone a subject he knows nothing about – relying as all lay people do on the utterings of people not known for their truthfulness over the time that AGW has become the the biggest con job ever.

What Turnbull should have done is followed Trump's lead and given the whole thing, including the Paris farce, the bum's rush. It has cost us too much already and has meant only hugely increased power prices as the above mentioned countries go on building coal powered generators with the coal we sell to them but don't want to use ourselves.

We Australians must now be well up there with the dumbest people in the world. In fact, our politicians are the dumbest people in the world.

“After a decade of the climate wars and 30 years of warnings from scientists about rising global temperature and its terrible implications for life on Earth, this is woefully unacceptable”. No! The woefully unacceptable thing is the lies that we have been hearing for 30 years by crooks making a motza out of the biggest ruse on earth. And the lies still keep coming: diminishing ice, dying polar bears, warming – on and on; all disproved, but still believed and spread about by useful idiots like this bloke, and of course, the vile, corrupt United Nations.

What I find galling is the way Turnbull bignoted himself at the Paris climate conference about the 26-28% emissions cut. We're going the other way a bit the Melbourne Cup being galloped backwards.

If the electricity sector has to do most of the heavy lifting I make that about 140 Mt out of 190 Mt therefore unlikely. Generous subsidies and quotas for renewable energy have failed to do enough except increase power bills so the answer must lie elsewhere like nuclear.

There is general scepticism about electric cars but we don't want them charged with gas and coal fired electricity. Across the ditch petrol is $NZ2.05 per litre so expect screams of blue murder when it happens here. Replacing half our short range cars with EV could add 10-15% to electricity demand. Then we're supposed to use electric heat pumps and induction cookers not gas. If not nuclear what else?

Agree with much of the Author's expressed sentiments. As South Australia found out the hard way! The answer clearly not renewables, nor renewables connected to eiter batteries/pumped hydro already doubled in cost, since first mooted just months ago! Unless we want to further cripple our manufacturing sector.

The answer clearly is nuclear. Not any nuclear but FORBIDDEN by the US government, patently protecting vested fossil fuel/big nuclear from competition that would destroy both their current business models!

Nixon killed off thorium by withdrawing its funding and redirecting it to his home state of California, to a liquid metal R+D project that has since suffered a meltdown and a shutdown.

If we started to research carbon free, walk away safe, molten salt thorium, we would be following a long line of countries, now thumbing the collective nose to OPEC and America's nuclear industry!

Why shouldn't we, even if that incorporates some sovereign risk for price gouging, tax avoiding, profit repatriating foreigners?

Nick, it's hard to achieve a commercial enterprise if it's forbidden for one reason and one reason only!

To protect the vested interests of the fossil fuel industry, big nuclear and significant number of renewables! And for all the wrong reasons, none of which are aimed at mitigating against climate change?

Climate change, the very last thing on the radar of our government and the vested interests they plainly serve?

It's time they and those they answer to? Stopped treating the average mug out there in Mugsville as mushrooms! Our dying on the vine manufacturing sector deserve better!

And undivided loyalty to Australia and Australians first! Hard to do, while receiving $800,000.00 PA, from a chinese business interest, like a former minister, with the ear of the government?

We've seen enough, murder by mudslides, caused by clear felled forests, felled for the want of affordable energy and the alternative enterprises, they could have created! And indeed, progressively mitigated against counterproductive, planet killing population growth!

Moreover, with the only measure that has worked thus far! Improved economic circumstances! TBC.
Alan B.

Climate change is easier if we also attack and remove poverty wherever it exists! Overpopulation is only addressable, by improving the economic circumstances of those countries, confounded by too many mouths to feed!

And forced to clear fell forests as one of a few indigenous industries, available to mismanaged banana republics the world over!

Or worse imposed as the only remaining survival mechanism for the resident population!

Ateday and others have long bewailed population growth and expect, simplistically! One can legislate against it!?

Possible only with draconian measures imposed by absolute dictatorships! No reasonable decent normal human being would advocate that, when quite deliberately improved economic circumstance works far better and without limiting the personal freedoms and choices of "NORMAL" human beings!

And as simple as providing affordable potable water! Providing that, as difficult or easy as providing CLEAN, SAFE, AFFORDABLE energy!

And resisted to the last dime by a tiny minority whose commercial interests might be hurt, because they couldn't cope with change that obliged them to cut their losses and change their business model!

[So, who needs debt laden foreign speculators anyway? The Celtic Tiger?]

Moreover, what the most successful managers employed as soon as they saw the writing on the wall! And that now writ large writing is saying. Walk away safe, molten salt thorium and deionization dialysis desalination, as the complete not for profit package that'd start/do it!
Alan B.

Good and timely truth-telling essay.

I really like the contents and world-view promoted by the Doctors for the Environment website. It is entirely life positive for both humans and the natural world too, upon which we are completely dependent for quite literally everything.

It has complete resonance with this essay re the zone of human responsibility in anthropocene epoc http://www.dabase.org/p2anthro.htm

Quote "are as boring as bat droppings and totallly insignificant when compared with the emissions of countries like China and India."

And they pale into insignificant by comparison to mother natures contribution like volcanoes.

“What is the science telling us? That the globe is warming, that polar ice is diminishing, and that seasonal climate variations are becoming more extreme, are all verifiable facts. The only satisfactory explanation for these effects is a rise in greenhouse gases.” This is ideology. There is no empirical scientific evidence to substantiate the assertion that “the only satisfactory explanation for these effects is a rise in greenhouse gases.” “However, 3,000 deaths per year in Australia can be linked to air pollution, at a cost of between $11 billion and $24 billion.” The ‘good’ doctor should look in his own patch. He should be aware of his colleagues’ abuse of the ethical principle of ‘do no harm’. Yet, about 100,000 unborn babies are killed per year in Australia due to his ‘professional’ colleagues’ involvement in administering abortions. The cost of these lives foregone to the nation would far exceed $24 billion. All of these deaths are preventable.

Edited version:

“What is the science telling us?
That the globe is warming, that polar ice is diminishing, and that seasonal climate variations are becoming more extreme, are all verifiable facts. The only satisfactory explanation for these effects is a rise in greenhouse gases.”

This is ideology. There is no empirical scientific evidence to substantiate the assertion that “the only satisfactory explanation for these effects is a rise in greenhouse gases.”

“However, 3,000 deaths per year in Australia can be linked to air pollution, at a cost of between $11 billion and $24 billion.”

The ‘good’ doctor should look in his own patch. He should be aware of his colleagues’ abuse of the ethical principle of ‘do no harm’ -- about 100,000 unborn babies are killed per year in Australia due to his ‘professional’ colleagues’ involvement in administering abortions. The cost of these lives foregone to the nation would far exceed $24 billion. All of these deaths are preventable.

Energy estimated to cost just $00.1.98, our solution to our economic malaise and energy crisis/changes everything!

How do we know it can be that cheap?

We know almost to the last gram, what several operational thorium powered reactors used. Can deduce, one ton of thorium produces as much energy in a 350 MW, molten salt reactor, as 2551 tons of uranium, in a 350 MW light water reactor.

Moreover, thorium common as lead, whereas costly uranium rare as platinum! Needs expensive enrichment as well!

Not required for thorium metal!

Molten salt technology can and does use uranium. However, given cost comparisons? Equivalent to burning methanol refined from an aged single malt whiskey to power your car, in preference to the local BP pump!

In comparison, a daft waste of money! Not that the hypothetical whiskey refiner would be perturbed, except if you stopped buying his product!

Given the extrapolated cost comparisons, thorium cheaper than coal, when you compare the tonnage required to power either variant over the same 50 year, time frame.

Power that cheap that produces heat coal can't look at, allows a massive range of new industries/industrial applications! With none of the pressure vessel requirements of light water uranium reactors, containing, as much as, 300 atmospheres?

Whereas, the already tried tested and not found wanting, molten salt thorium, able to operate at normal atmospheric pressure.

People can bury their head, pretend the climate isn't heating up, when all the normal cyclical indicators tell us the joint shouldn't be warming.

Even so, we never ever need to cripple our economy to deal with it. Just allow research and development into molten salt thorium!

When we've established how much cheaper it is, use it and deionization dialysis desalination, to drought proof Australia and set her up for the next boom, the food boom! From deserts made to bloom!

Maybe then our economic circumstances may pick up enough, so at least mothers can actually chose/afford to go full term and become stay at home, full time Mums!
Alan B.

I find it absolutely incredible that there are still people who actually believe the CO2 greenhouse fraud.

That there are hundreds of thousands that use it to fill their pockets I can totally understand, but am sure none of these carpetbaggers actually believe the myth.

With the amount of data published in the last couple of years totally disproving that CO2 is nothing more than a minor bit player in climate, but a major force in the greening of the planet, no one not riding the gravy train should be in any doubt by now.

Graeme Mcleay says:” The only satisfactory explanation for these effects is a rise in greenhouse gases.”.
This baseless nonsense has been asserted before as part of the climate fraud, but fails miserably because there is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
As observed by Professor Robert Carter, some time ago, and still fully applicable today:
“It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinctfrom natural variation."

You are just another fraud supporter, Graeme,through ignorance if you are unaware of the science, and dishonesty if you are aware that there is no science to support it, but support the fraud anyway.

The link to Robert Carters statement is at:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/copenhagen-and-global-warming-ten-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467

He also said:” The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has acted as the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby that led to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.”

To Daffy Duck from diver dan, the man from the deep dark world of reality!

Civilisation needs to rediscover its memory code. Your essay, which describes a United Nations rule as the answer, is utopian.

Civilisation is in a transition similar to the transition five thousand years ago, in which it moved from an oral culture to a literate culture. Those left behind in their oral culture, such as the Australian Aboriginals were, will be the losers. So expect a losing class!

The real question is, what are we transitioning into? It seems obvious to me, the transition is simply one of wealth accumulation.. Those stripped of necessary resources for survival, will be the fodder in the he new age.

As the oceans acidify, turning themselves into the harbours of slime, in which bugger-all can live, ocean resources will be withdrawn from the menu.
Likewise, the drying of the continents, will force farming practices to fail, and hunger to increase.

One positive from it all, will be a reduction in global population, to a stable level.
The manner of rule over global populations, will be designed for winners with the means to dictate it. That is ever the way it has worked in the past, and nothing will change, unless human nature changes, and that advent will remain “pie in the sky”.

I came upon a comment today, relating to the matters discussed above. The comment was so correct and so fabulously eloquent, I really wished that I'd written it, but I didn't.

The writer of the comment is Vicki, I don't know who she is, but she seems like "quite a clever girl" and very much my kind of a thinking woman.

Vicki wraps up the entire issue in just a few sentences in a Sydney based daily news journalist’s blog today, and this is what she had to say:

"The Paris Climate Change Agreement, compliments of the United Nations, is a sham and its main aim is to de-industrialise first world countries and turn them into third world countries. And to think the taxpayer has to pay for this socialist drivel is mind blowing" - Vicki, 28/12/17.

Now that's a quote to remember. And how is it that other people can't see or understand the truth that Vicki has discovered for herself? I don't know. Draw your own conclusions.

But with women like Vicki in the world, you know, there could still be some hope for mankind.

You go girl!

Where is the evidence that Dr Mclean is wrong?
Medical Doctors have a background in science extending far beyond High School science.
On a daily basis they use problem solving skills using science to solve medical issues.
Those critical of his article do not display those attributes.

.The American Meteorological Society have come to the conclusion that for 2016 that weather patterns experienced could not be explained by anything other than climate change.
.Loiusiana is about to embark on a program of moving people from low lying flood plains where king tides cause flooding. The flooding happens regardless of whether precipitation has happened.
.Miami has had a program of building roads higher and placing huge pumps in areas where flooding happens with king tides.
.2017, an la nina year, is likely to be one of the warmest ever recorded.
.A yacht was able to sail the North East and North West passage of the Arctic Ocean in 2016.
.UTAS has a record of sea temperature off Maria Island being high.
etc etc
Don't believe these facts, try Mr Google

The flea is back with more irrelevant nonsense.
In my post of 28 December above, I quoted the science which the flea ignores:
“It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinctfrom natural variation."
Your support of the climate fraud, flea, is based on your dishonesty. There is no science to support it.
Your posts of irrelevant nonsense, simply remind us, as you have acknowledged, that you are an unqualified, incompetent ignoramus, with no understanding of the concept of science.
We do not need your nonsensical posts to remind us.

Leo

As stated check Mr Google in relation to what I stated.

But, to help you:

Louisiana encouraging people to move from flood plains:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-22/louisiana-sinking-fast-prepares-to-empty-out-its-coastal-plain

Miami building infra-structure to try to ward off sea level rise:

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/10/476071206/as-waters-rise-miami-beach-builds-higher-streets-and-political-willpower

You know better than the American Meteorological Society:

http://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/about-ams/news/news-releases/human-influence-on-climate-led-to-several-major-weather-extremes-in-2016/

2017 likely to be one of warmest years on record:

http://phys.org/news/2017-11-warmest-year.html

Yacht sails both passages of Arctic Ocean:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/boat-that-sailed-around-arctic-arrives-in-westport-1.2828736

Ocean warming off Tasmania:

http://www.media.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/118112/banded-morwong-media-release-April-2011.pdf

Yes, flea, another pile of irrelevant nonsense.
Even an incompetent ignoramus would understand that to justify your position you need science to show that human emissions have a measurable effect on climate.
You do not have it, because there is no such science. The climate fraud relies on dishonest assertions of scientists like Hansen, Karl and many others, and the support of dishonest people like yourself, with no science to support their assertions.
Like you, they reject science, and support lies.

An example of the dishonesty of one of the fraud promoters, NOAA, flea:
the organisation that is the world's leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz52iSdwuGT

Follow us:

Leo

The matter of Karl et al's research has been dealt with previously.
David Rose, the author of your article has been shown to be wrong on a number of occasions.
The article you mentioned was critical of Thomas Karl el al's research, the research has been validated.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise

Quote:

"What he fails to mention is that the new NOAA results have been validated by independent data from satellites, buoys and Argo floats and that many other independent groups, including Berkeley Earth and the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre, get effectively the same results."

http://blog.ucsusa.org/peter-frumhoff/david-rose-attack-climate-scientists

The Union of Concerned Scientists provides a quote from the Editor of Science:

"Jeremy Berg, editor of Science, firmly rejects the notion of a “rush to publish”: “The article by Karl et al. underwent handling and review for almost six months [longer than average for this journal]. Any suggestion that the review of this paper was ‘rushed’ is baseless and without merit. Science stands behind its handling of this paper, which underwent particularly rigorous peer review.” "

Bates, the scientist Rose centred his article on; when interviewed by Associated Press stated:

"However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”

“It’s really a story of not disclosing what you did,” Bates said in the interview. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form.”"

Also:

"“The study has been reproduced independently of Karl et al — that’s the ultimate platinum test of whether a study is to be believed or not,” McNutt said. “And this study has passed.”"

http://apnews.com/3fc5d49a349344f1967aadc4950e1a91/major-global-warming-study-again-questioned-again-defende

I am well aware, flea, of failed attempts by fraud promoters to discredit exposure of the tactics of a fraud promoter like NOAA.
Here is what an honest climate scientist, Judith Curry, says:” She noted how the “consensus” scheme has put climate science on the “wrong track” by “shinning a light” on only one small part of climate science, that being greenhouse gas emissions, while ignoring the huge role played by natural climate variation. This political approach has been a great disservice to efforts needed to truly understand our complex climate system and also greatly mislead policy makers.
Dr. Curry noted the ineffectual provisions of the Paris Climate Agreement where even if all countries meet their proclaimed emission reductions targets the result is only about a 0.2 Degrees C global temperature lowering by year 2100. She further noted that since the climate models run “hot” the actual likely global temperature reduction would be much less.
Regarding claims of accelerating sea level rise allegedly caused by human greenhouse gas emissions Dr. Curry noted that sea level has been rising for the last 10,000 years as a result of the end of the last ice age, that the UN ICC AR5 report data shows that sea level rise in the period of the 1940 to 1950’s was consistent with recent sea level rise levels, that large continental ice mass melting might drive future large sea level rise but that Antarctica ice mass is growing while Greenland ice mass is variable in behavior.
She concluded that “there is no evidence, so far, that human activities are influencing sea level rise”.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/11/dr-judith-curry-explains-the-reality-of-bad-climate-science-and-bad-politics/

Leo

Your reference to David Rose was a beat up; shown to be wrong by the very man whom he quotes.

Dr Curry is a contrarian scientist; fair enough, she has stated that she tends to be a maverick like Dr James Hansen.
Dr Hansen takes a different view, there are a number of hyperlinks to science in article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/james-hansen-sea-level-rise_us_56effb51e4b084c67220c630

Larson C broke off from Antarctica earlier in 2017, said to be roughly the size of US State of Delaware.

The concern expressed by climate scientists is that grounding lines of ice sheets are moving towards glaciers.

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-ocean-interactions/grounding-lines/

Also:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060140/full

And there are many more references.

Mapping using radar and laser altimetry instruments have been used to establish grounding lines through Project IceBridge. That is, data is used to inform scientists about moving grounding lines and sea level rise will ultimately be the result.

Dr Curry stated as an analogy, from your reference:

“The collapse of the consensus on cholesterol and heart disease – that one collapsed overnight. I can only hope that sanity will eventually prevail with the climate problem as well.”

Doctors are still very concerned about cholesterol levels, and there has been a reduction in the amount of cholesterol deemed to be safe. A very poor analogy presented by Dr Curry; equivalent to anti-vaxxers views.

Gauwd, we are still wasting time on this AGW debate.
The basic overriding facts are these;
The ERoEI of oil has fallen from 100 to 10 over75 years.
The ERoEI of coal has fallen from 80 to 10 over 60 years.
The Auckland Uni Coastal Institute report since 1940s that
65% of Pacific Islands are larger, 30% are the same & the rest are smaller.
Solar & Wind cannot replace the present electricity system.
Solar & wind are the most expensive electricity generators.
The energy needed to manufacture, install & maintain is greater than can be produced.
Batteries are a lost dream, UK would need 14,000 the size of Sth Aus's

The oil industry is unable to replace its expended reserves.
The Shell Oil Company has announced it is making long term
preparations to leave the oil industry.

When will you all wake up that the only thing on the horizon is
Nuclear Power of one form or another.

Stop dreaming and come down to earth and the very urgent need to get
stuck into the new energy regime while we have the energy to build it !

Bazz

Dr McLeay, wrote about climate change; the main theme being about the impact of climate change.

A short course which links health and climate change:

http://eliademy.com/catalog/catalog/product/view/sku/d0dd478153

Lancet and the British Journal of Medicine have had major articles about the health impacts of climate change.

Countries generally have not been doing well in pushing promises made at Paris.

Currently, we have the odd situation where Alaska is warmer than the Southern States.

The sea ice waxes and wanes in the Arctic Ocean; but multi-year ice which provides the backbone for ice structure is disappearing. Volume of sea ice has dramatically declined since 1980. Once that ice has been lost during Summer and Autumn period it creates a dystopian world.

The original Inuit inhabitants of the Arctic have a word for what is going on:

"'The Inuit have a word for changes they are seeing to their environment: uggianaqtuq, meaning “to behave strangely”': strong, sad NYT article on lost ice, lost hope & solastalgia in northern communities. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/11/25/climate/arctic-climate-change.html … "

From:

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2017/12/this-should-freak-everyone-out-the-arctic-will-never-be-frozen-again/

The Inuit with no ideology to push say ... 'to behave strangely".

Meanwhile, the US has its own climate refugees who are leaving Puerto Rico in droves. A large part of Puerto Rico still does not have power:

http://www.vox.com/2017/12/23/16795342/puerto-rico-maria-christmas

A graph in the article shows how out of 10 worst hurricanes experienced by the US, 9 have happened in the 21st Century, the other was in 1998.

To take no action in relation to climate change equates to stealing from our children; we are already experiencing a climate which is out of kilter.

Why are we still arguing about CO2 & any minute effect it may have on climate?

Anyone with even half a brain knows that the whole scam is an effort by the elites to get us ordinary peasants off our rich comfortable lifestyles, & back into a feudal existence. They see everything we consume as a waste of something they may one day want. Peasants with air conditioning & cars offends their sensibilities.

Not only do they want to reduce our lifestyle, they want to reduce our numbers. They don't need more than a billion or so surfs to provide everything to maintain their parasitic rich & comfortable lifestyle. They know the quickest way of getting rid of a few billion of us is to take away our energy supply.

All this is so obvious I can't understand why some of us can see it immediately. Even more, I can't understand how they can recruit useful idiots like Ant to do their fraud promotion for them.

The thing I can't figure out is, are the Ants of this world actually members of the elites, detailed to do their time pretending to be a true believer peasant, doing this promotion? Or are there actually stupid enough to believe what Ant pushes as science?

I wonder if the Ants will finally realise they have been conned, when the ice sheet reaches Chicago, or will they still claim this is yet another manifestation of "Global Warming"

Well ant, I've tried to leave you alone to spout your ignorance on the basis that its be-kind-to-dumb-animals week. But this piece of lunacy ("A graph in the article shows how out of 10 worst hurricanes experienced by the US, 9 have happened in the 21st Century") is just too imbecilic, even by your lofty standards,to let through.

The graph doesn't go even close to showing what you think it shows.First, it doesn't show the "worst" hurricanes, it shows the hurricanes that caused the biggest blackouts. Now, this might be hard for you to follow, but as electricity usage expands more places will suffer blackouts during storms. The Georgia/South Carolina Hurricane of 1881, yes 1881, probably didnt cause too many blackouts, not because it wasn't big but because electricity wasn't prevalent...let me know if I'm going too fast for you.

Second, its based on population not storm severity. More people means more "customer-hours lost" which is what is being measured. You're probably not aware of it but the US population is higher now than in the past. Higher population means more customer hours lost even if the storm is less severe than one in the past.

Finally the data is based on news reports for the older hurricanes. From the article.. the data is based on "rough estimates based on available news reports". I'm guessing available means online. They admit they probably got the 1938 hurricane wrong. There aren't too many articles from 1881 newspaper online, and I doubt they went searching through local libraries looking for reports about 19th century storms.

Let's face it, you saw a pretty picture which you thought supported your prejudices and didn't bother to look into it any further. SOP for our Antony.

Puerto Rico is a mess because its government is a corrupt mess. Well its Democrat so that goes without saying really.

___________

By the way, ant, how's that Exxon prosecution going? Anyone gaoled yet? Have you gotten around to reading the actual documents yet? or is ignorance bliss?

Hasbeen

Yep, we have those community orientated fossil fuel billionaires who are providing a public service through paying some denier groups to spread doubt about science. Nothing to do with profits, naturally.

The view that CO2 has an impact on climate was known in the 19th Century through Foote and Tyndall. A short newspaper article in a New Zealand paper acknowledges the impact of fossil fuels on climate.
Experimentation shows how CO2 takes up warmth from radiated heat.
Back modelling using known data shows that increasing CO2 is instrumental in warming the atmosphere.

To survive we need greenhouse gases, fossil fuels when used to create energy produce more CO2.

Scientists working for ExxonMobil in the '70s acknowledged that CO2 created from fossil fuels create a warming climate. Extra water vapour, a secondary greenhouse impacting agent is created through a warming climate.

Where is the evidence that extra CO2 has no impact on climate?

Without greenhouse gases we would not be alive; Earth would be too cold.

So what evidence is there that Earth is cooling (ice sheet at Chicago)? A quite peculiar comment when Alaska is warmer than Southern US States at present. What causes permafrost to thaw, or a greening of tundra areas, something observed for a number of years in Alaska, Northern Canada and Siberia?

mhaze

The case is still progressing:

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/30032017/exxonmobil-climate-change-research-ny-attorney-general-investigation

An interesting quote from Texas Judge Kinkeade:

""What the Court does know is that Exxon has publicly acknowledged since 2006 the possible significant risks to society and ecosystems from rising greenhouse gas emissions, yet the attorneys general have only recently felt compelled to look further into Exxon's documents from the last 40 years to see if Exxon knew more than it shared with the public and investors about climate change.""

Which means that the Judge acknowledges the science produced by ExxonMobil scientists in the 70s. That is, CO2 is a greenhouse gas with an impact on climate

ant,

There is no progress in the case. It only survives because the few Democrat politicians who based their advancement on the claims, can't bring themselves to admit that there is no case.

After two years of 'investigation' not one single charge has been laid. Not one. But that is what I told you two years ago would happen. Anyone who has read the actual papers knows that there is no case. That's why Exxon have been happy to hand over some much data during the discovery phase. Some much in fact that the Democrats complained it was too much for them to process.

You'd know all this if you'd read the papers as I suggested two years ago. But, it seems, you prefer to be led down the garden path by ICN et al.

mhaze

You would realise that big Corporations such as ExxonMobil will do everything possible to stall legal action. The tobacco industry was able to quash adverse science for a considerable time.

The Texan judge acknowledged that ExxonMobil agreed with CO2 being a greenhouse gas.

mhaze

You stated "... it doesn't show the "worst" hurricanes, it shows the hurricanes that caused the biggest blackouts."

Nobody has stated that there has not been bad weather in the past; but, even if you are right about 1881 and 1938, there has not been a spate of major hurricanes as experienced in recent times. You wrote about blackouts, ignoring the catastrophic damage to houses, businesses, and other infra-structure; for example, there are still areas of New Orleans that have not been rebuilt after hurricane Katrina.

Harvey is said to be worst storm ever to hit Texas, there is commentary about FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) not coping. A complaint also made in relation to Puerto Rico of poor management (below) .

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/fema-director-says-harvey-is-probably-the-worst-disaster-in-texas-history/2017/08/27/ef01600a-8b3f-11e7-8df5-c2e5cf46c1e2_story.html?deferJs=true&outputType=default-article&utm_term=.7d4765dd31b8&wpisrc=al_alert-COMBO-hse%252Bnational&wpmk=1

The Governor of Peurto Rico at first was supportive of Trump; now as reconstruction is taking so long he is becoming very critical. FEMA, is an Agency set up to deal with natural disasters.
There is a strong contrast between how Opal was dealt with in 1995, and Trump's response to Maria in 2017. Prior to Opal hitting land, supplies and personnel had been moved into place. Not so, with Maria, some time after the storm aid began to move in.

Where there is a slow, but sure devastation to ultimately happen, FEMA does not operate:

http://www.npr.org/2017/12/20/571914718/for-alaskan-coastal-village-erosion-hits-home?utm_content=bufferbfed4&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

The question is why is that erosion taking place at Newtok and other townships on the Alaskan Coast?

Since 1st June 2017 there have been 58 films made in the series Climate & Extreme Weather News, a Youtube film channel. Those films display extreme flooding, mud slides, and huge wild fires where terrible damage is done and people are killed.

Blackouts don't rate in comparison.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmEgRmL5aRA

ant.

"You would realise that big Corporations such as ExxonMobil will do everything possible to stall legal action."

When you first started to rave about this almost two years ago I predicted then that, when nothing came of it you'd see that as evidence of the vast conspiracy.

You are soooooo predictable.

In your mind this is how it goes: if Exxon is charged, its proof of their guilt. If Exxon isn't charged its proof of their guilt.

Struth!

"there has not been a spate of major hurricanes as experienced in recent times."

That's arrant rubbish. Wrong in the most extreme sense of the word. Please provide evidence for this ridiculous claim.

Of coarse, I won't expect you to provide such evidence. I'll just add it to the list of all the other made-up assertions that you've made and never supported with evidence.

mhaze

Your request:

"Please provide evidence for this ridiculous claim."

"WASHINGTON — It’s not just this year. The monster hurricanes Harvey, Irma, Maria, Jose and Lee that have raged across the Atlantic are contributing to what appears to be the most active period for major storms on record.

And the busiest part of hurricane season isn’t even over.
An analysis of 167 years of federal storm data by The Associated Press found that no 30-year period in history has seen this many major hurricanes, this many days of those whoppers spinning in the Atlantic, or this much overall energy generated by those powerful storms."

From:

https://globalnews.ca/news/3787686/hurricanes-season-atlantic/

Argue with Associated Press, if you believe this to be wrong.

ahh, that well known climate expert Associated Press.

Over the past decade hurricane activity has been at an historic low. I don't recall them writing about that. But one bad season and the we're-all-gunna-die crowd are out in force.

But their 'research' is trickery, designed to fool those who want to be fooled, people like ant.

What they did was to pretend rigour by looking at the data for not just land-fall storms but all identified storms. The problem there is that, prior to 1970 or so, our ability to notice storms in mid-ocean that didn't make land-fall was limited. That means there is a bias in the data that showing more recent storms. That's why people seeking the truth rather than the propaganda don't use this type of analysis.

AP even acknowledges this...and then proceeds to do it anyway.

And the usual fools fall for it...again.

Try this for a more rigorous analysis....

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/sotc/tropical-cyclones/2015/annual/NAT_ace_2015.png

_______________________________________________-

Here's an interesting thing to ponder:

Currently there is a massive cold-wave over the US. But the we're-all-gunna-die crowd are anxious to point out that this means nothing. Its just the weather, not the climate. But then there is one season of higher hurricane activity and suddenly they are demanding to know why those evil deniers want to point out its just the weather and not the climate.

Warmist are getting more and more desperate to support very failed narrative.

mhaze

A film clip which discloses more legal action against ExxonMobil than I was aware of:

http://youtu.be/0fj83jTlT2Y