Dear Jbower,

You and the other nutters here have been left behind on this ten bloody years ago but here you are, in some little pocket of the internet where you feel you have a few other denier buddies to gee you up.

Srewth mate, time to give it a rest.

Why are you still trotting out this kind of crap?

“The filthy traitorous Greens want us destroyed but our equally filthy scientists make money from the lie that we actually increase CO2 when we clearly are absorbing it for China and India.”

The vast amounts of money tied up in the fossil fuel industry, a fair chunk of it spent on capturing utter fools like yourself to do their propaganda for nix, and you try and flag 'scientists' as the ones in thrall of the filthy lucre?

Get a life.

Raycom,
If you'd bothered to check the comments of that article you linked to, you'd see that I've already explained its flaws.

We already qualitatively know how changing inputs changes outputs. The purpose of modelling is to quantify that.

How hard is it to understand that models are not the source of what we know about the climate?

______________________________________________________________________________________

JBowyer,
The cost to the consumer of new coal plants would be much higher than that of firmed solar, even before you consider the health impact of burning large amounts of brown coal. Solar power has the huge advantage of no fuel cost, and that's something coal will never be able to match.

And forget buying waterfront properties at ten bucks a pop - that just shows a lack of understanding of the real estate market. Land value is still significant even if the buildings have to be floodproof. And even in the low lying areas that could be susceptible to rising sea levels, the land will have value for a few years yet at least - at worst it would be comparable to leasehold, and that sells for a lot more than ten bucks! But a more likely scenario is that governments will spend billions of dollar on seawalls.

______________________________________________________________________________________

runner,
In 1989 this was a new issue to most people. Environmentalists were making claims about what they were genuinely worried could happen.

By the early '90s, the oceanographers were well aware that the sea level rise would be on a much longer timescale.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Peter Lang,
What link do you imagine I have to the WWF?
And what do you think WWF should do to stop the poaching of endangered wildlife?

I'll address your earlier points later today if I have time.

This is just awful! Look ten dollars a property for any properties that are still above water in 1980, the offer stands. Where is all this money from the coal industry? I want some. Probably the same place as all the Russian money that got Australians like me to vote Donald Trump as the US president.
You talk about backward thinking when you are still flying in the face of all logic? The rest of the world are laughing at the West. Stop using cheap power and make it as erratic and expensive as we can whilst real people get on with life.
Computer modeling, now there is a complete and utter balls up from start to finish with attendant peer review, what a joke.
You fools think you are so superior but you, ex public servants have more to lose than me.

'By the early '90s, the oceanographers were well aware that the sea level rise would be on a much longer timescale.'

yep how convenient Aiden. I know millions of years is nothing for evolutionist. They are very good at changing the facts to fit the narrative.

Aidan: "How hard is it to understand that models are not the source of what we know about the climate?"

The models are the source of the predicted increases in temperature deceptively promoted by the IPCC.

As the article states:
"What they do have are mathematical equations considered to be models of the Earth's climate. It is important to properly understand these models since they are the only basis for the climate scare.

Before we construct buildings or airplanes, we make physical, small-scale models and test them against the stress and performances that will be required of them when they are actually built. When dealing with systems that are largely, or entirely, beyond our control, such as climate, we try to describe them with mathematical equations. By altering the values of the variables in these equations, we then see how the outcomes are affected. This is called sensitivity testing, the very best use of mathematical models.

Today's climate models account for only a handful of the hundreds of variables that are known to impact climate, and the values inserted for the variables they do use are little more than guesses."

Dear JBowyer,

Well lookie here, Tony Abbott (obviously concerned about his seat) has now decided "“I’m not calling for us to pull out [of Paris] … We’ve got a new Prime Minister and a new energy minister."

A late conversion or a lying piece of garbage prepared to say or do anything to get reelected?

Mmmm.