There is no "adverse" weather; there is just weather: something that is natural and beyond the control of humans. I recently again had the pleasure of watching an hour long interview with Ian Plimer, one of the few scientists not caught up in the 'politicised science' hysteria - or perhaps, it should be called deliberate lying in the interests of big business and carpetbaggers.

Climate 'science' is crap. Climate change is natural, and has nothing at all to do with carbon dioxide.

Nevertheless, there is no indication that stupid people, in thrall to even more stupid politicians, are going to get the message before it is too late, and we are all going down with them.

Pollution can't possibly not have an affect on atmospheric conditions just as it is the case in the oceans.
Where does all this pollution come from ? From everyday people who demand goods & commodities & who change climate every day in their homes & cars. AC IS climate change that contributes to changes in the atmosphere ! Artificial entertainment is also a massive contributor as is pointless sport.
So, before they repeat-blame the multinationals companies people should start thinking why these companies produce the goods they produce !

It's true that many ascribe most extreme weather events to climate change. On the other hand many claim that cold snaps debunk global warming so subjective assessments are widespread. A tougher issue to discredit is sea level rise which has been about 4 mm a year recently and can't all be blamed on land subsidence or volcanoes.

I support steady moves to find alternatives to fossil fuels so we won't be caught flat footed when they are not available; example Germany and Russian gas. My fear is that by say 2040 major cities will routinely have 45C summers and well as high tides. The replacement energy system as currently planned won't be able to cope so it literally becomes a matter of life and death. It would be prudent to have an each way bet on climate change.

Taswegian,
I have long said that shipping must surely contribute to sea level rise. There has to be roughly 20+ Billion tonnes of shipping displacement & when evened out over 770 million square kilometres, this displacement has to cause at least a few mm of sea level. Add to this land reclaiming & river borne sediment & the figures soon tally up ! Extreme weather could possibly be attributed to a gradual imbalance of the planet rotation from millions of tonnes of materials rearranged & the weight of massive dams. Removing oil & gas i.e. reduce support pressure from deep down would also have to contribute to underground instability.
I'm simply offering another way of looking at the situation.

Indyvidual
Without going into the arithmetic of various factors in sea level rise the main point is that climate change explains several types of phenomena. That is the Occams Razor principle in science..one explanation covers several things. Currently we need one explanation for sea level rise, another for the rising average temperature and another for how records keep breaking for floods, polar vortices, fires and cyclones. This is also why medicine is better than it was 100 years ago. When we understand underlying processes we can take corrective action.

Is adverse weather mistaken for climate change? Highly unlikely! Climate change is politized by denialists, who to a generic man see this as a challenge to the income streams? Murray is an opinionated Malaysian businessman and not a climate scientist.

We see extreme heatwaves/weather events and record temperatures when all the natural indicators scream, we should be well into a new ice age and progressive global cooling.

Increased atmospheric CO2 means increased carbonic acid in our oceans which along with increased ocean temperatures is destroying corals. With bleaching events and coral graveyards all over the joint! This probably means, low lying islands may not be rescued by coral growth.

Here's the thing, we do not need to destroy economies or enhanced business opportunities to effectively mitigate against manmade climate change, just the very opposite! With business opportunities on steroids, staring us in the face from every angle.

Just got to take the self-limiting blinkers off!

MSR thorium, MSR nuclear waste burners and power prices as low as 3 cents PKWH. With a profit margin as high as 200%! I kid you not!

Disbelief in a round world never made it flat my friend!
Alan B.

Most of the things we use fossil fuels for generate heat. Cooking our food, heating our homes, thousands of industrial processes & generating electricity all add heat to our environment, so obviously fossil fuels are responsible for a small percentage of our temperature. Many other uses generate heat as a byproduct, such as powering internal combustion engines

Converting to electricity for all those heating applications will not reduce this heating at all. Electrical transport power will reduce heat production at point of use, but the much greater mining & purification required to produce electric vehicles & batteries will basically nullify this advantage with the heat produced in these processes. The same goes for solar & wind generation. Most realistic figures prove that neither will produce in their lifetime as much energy as used in their production & instillation, no heat saving there.

Years ago I simply believed the global warming scam, without a moments thought, but then some of the ridiculous garbage claimed of the effects of CO2 started me wondering. Left handed fish which don't avoid their predators anyone? I spent a few months getting my math back up to what it had been at uni. & then started looking at the equations.

It didn't take long, a couple of days to see what a pile of garbage the whole scam is.

Obviously 95+% of people don't have the math to do this, so can only either accept or deny what they are told by "experts", working for whom?

Yes CO2 has a very minor warming effect, but very little. Cloudy nights are warm, but on those cold clear nights, there is still just as much CO2 up there, doing stuff all to keep you warm. That is a simple demonstration of how little warming effect CO2 actually has. The rest of the effects claimed for the much maligned critical molecule are equally overstated.

Time to wake up to the con job that is global warming. A small number of people are making huge fortunes from the scam, to the detriment of most.

With our planet being a dynamic system the climate is changing, and will continue to change, regardless of what we do as some other commentators have correctly said.
What is happening is the rate of change and this is, no doubt in my mind, being altered and exacerbated by us, homo sapiens, by continually creating the need, or more likely want, for more and more.
The obvious solution would be to reduce this want and the only way is to aim for, and reduce to, a sustainable population.
We shall sooner or later cease to exist having bred ourselves out of house and home and remain in (unread) history as the only animal species who did this by wantonly destroying our own life sustaining environment because of our own greed.

It’s true that not every flood, storm and bushfire is the results of climate change, and we need to distinguish between weather and climate.

But it’s also true that scientists predict that these events will become more common because of climate change, and increasingly they are able to identify the likelihood that a particular event due to manmade climate change:

https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the-american-meteorological-society-bams/explaining-extreme-events-from-a-climate-perspective/

The things Murray accused mainstream commentors of doing – cherry picking, confirmation bias, ignoring or misrepresenting dissenting views – are at much more common in the arguments of climate sceptics. Their behaviour is far more “cult” like than meteorologists and climate scientists, with the added spice of the conspiracy theorist. For example, he links to a website claiming that it says climate science is “complete”. It says no such thing. It does, however, say the science is clear - the climate is changing, and human activity is at least partly to blame. That still leaves lots of areas to explore – exactly how weather patterns are changing, links to the other weather phenomena Murray mentions such as El Nino etc.

Murray says “Projecting mathematical climate change models fifty and one hundred years into the future, based primarily upon weather data that has only been collected over the last few years, is fraught with danger of being grossly inaccurate.”

Happily, that is not all that climate scientists rely on. They have dozens of sources of information on climate going back hundreds, thousands and in some cases millions of years (tree rings, the writing and culture of ancient peoples, ice core samples, geology, fossil records ….)

Murray’s arguments remind me of the so-called “creation scientists” who argue that, because evolutionary scientists cannot explain how incremental evolution can produce and eye (in fact they can), we should treat evolution as just a theory with no more scientific credibility than 7-day creation.

Real science may indeed never be complete, and every theory can and should be challenged. But that in no way supports Murray's implication that there is a serious scientific argument that manmade climate change is not happening.

Having educated guesses as to what is happening to our planet is good for conversation. What we don't get to hear much on is what we can/could do collectively rather than keep putting the onus on others who really don't know much more themselves.
Reminds me of an extremely well naturally ventilated Nth Qld school when the Brisbane hierarchy decreed that all schools need to be air conditioned in communities with Diesel generator power only.

CO2 traps some radiant heat at fairly low levels due to the weight of CO2. That's not the only greenhouse gas. with a much lighter methane trapping radiant heat at a much higher level. Water vapour is by far and away the best at trapping radiant heat. One only need compare frost outcomes between a cloudy night and a clear and frosty one.

I advised (stupidity personified) coal investors, here on OLO, to get out of coal, take their losses and reinvest in lithium. Had they followed that advice then, would be laughing all the way to the bank, now. Heat on its own does little if it can escape the planet.

When it can't by being reflecting back by any of the foregoing, we get manmade climate change, and we can and should do something about that. Given, there mucho plenty money to be made in doing so!
Alan B.

What Rhian says.
Alan B.

WTF?
SourceWatch is published by the " Centre of Media and Democracy" and they state that they provide well-documented information about corporate public relations (PR) campaigns, including corporate front groups, people who "front" corporate campaigns, and PR operations.

This is what they say about Ian Plimer.

Plimer's denialist book on global warming was universally panned by scientists as full of errors and even accused of plagiarism.

Plimer debated George Monbiot and one observer noted "For Plimer, it was an unmitigated disaster. He fudged and distracted at every turn like a senile old goat. In the end, he refused to answer a single question put to him by Monbiot or the moderator. His credibility - and that of his book - withered away into oblivion."

They also state: "...couldn't help noticing on page120 an almost word-for-word reproduction of the abstract from a well-known loony paper...[that] argues that the sun isn't composed of 98 per cent hydrogen and helium, as astronomers have confirmed through a century of observation and theory, but is instead similar in composition to a meteorite.

[continued...]

[continued]

Other claims made by SourceWatch about Plimer...

"...finds it "rather strange" that Plimer argues for volcanoes as the cause of rising CO2, after trying to convince his audience that CO2 is an unimportant trace gas and doesn’t change climate anyway."

"... Plimer stated that "volcanoes that leak out carbon dioxide have caused global warming in the past", a statement that starkly contrasts with his later claims that CO2 levels have no effect on climate."

"...Plimer claimed that white asbestos, known as chrysotile, is not really asbestos, whereas the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services calls it the most common form of asbestos. Plimer went on to assert that chrysotile is not a carcinogen, even though in 2008 the WHO (World Health Organisation) said it was a carcinogen, and so do medical authorities throughout the world."

Plimer even lost a court case against the creationist minister Allen Roberts despite the fact that the court ruled that Roberts made false and misleading claims.

There is more but somehow I think that Plimer will remain the poster-boy for denialists.