Quote:
Drought Minister David Littleproud said he “totally” accepts climate
change is leading to droughts and disrupted rainfalls.

He is suggesting that drought will become worse and turn into desert.
Does he suggest that we abandon any drought measures and all farmers
leave the land now.
This must be conclusion of his beliefs.
But he doesn't. Why, does he believe things will return to normal ?
Well he has to because that is the opinion of cabinet.

Here we see the problem of the government laid bare.
This drought, or the next one might be permanent.
If he is right then we may as well just suicide and be done with it.

For the last 40 or 50 years we have been told how our world is
chocking on CO2, the gas that is the staff of life.
All sorts of dire predictions have been made, none of which came true.

Alan B surprised me with his blanket defense of AGW.
Alan, you have been bashing our ear-- no eyes about thorium and
science for ages but you do not look askance at some of the ridiculous
claims about sea levels etc. Face it, it is just not happening !

Its Sunday, its a long weekend, go out and get some Vitamin D from the Sun, walk the dog, cat, pig, mouse, grasshopper.... whatever. No amount of factual information will convince anyone in this debate. Hopefully, common-sense will prevail before we are either fried by the Sun when it moves to becoming a red dwarf or we all are bankrupted, impoverished and taxed to within an inch of our lifes... and then the Indians and Chinese will take over the world... led by the Martian army, led by Emperor MUSK when he returns from Mars. LoL

Dear Alison Jane,

I thought I had asked my question politely and kept is pretty simple to boot. Do you really have no answer? Perhaps you missed it in all the kerfuffle. I will put it to you again.

Can I ask what physical property of CO2 would you like me to ignore in order to accept that increasing the concentration of this significant green house gas by a third has had no impact on global temperatures?

Alan B, It Is no doubt the fact that you are older than the supporters of the truth about the the assertions of the anti-climate fraud, that you produce such rubbish in your posts.
Added to your main disability of verbal diarrhoea, it is no wonder you produce nothing sensible.
What is the basis of your assertions about their age? More of your made up nonsense, no doubt.

go read a set of textbooks, study... physics, chemistry and biology, the three main sciences.... that is you challenge... but then you probably want answers now.. well go do some study about co2 and you shall learn. go in peace

Dear Alison Jane,

I have done some study and I have learnt, which is why I have put the question to you because you seem to want to refute that effort.

Again can I ask what physical property of CO2 would you like me to ignore in order to accept that increasing the concentration of this significant green house gas by a third has had no impact on global temperatures?