Davsab said:
“The greenhouse gases are best regarded as a biogeochemical feedback, initiated by the orbital variations, but then feeding back to amplify the warming once it is already underway. The lag of CO2 of about 1000 years corresponds closely to the expected time it takes to flush excess respiration-derived CO2 out of the deep ocean via natural ocean currents. So the lag is quite close to what would be expected, if CO2 were acting as a feedback.”

No scientist worthy of credibility can argue with that. And I doubt that Ian Plimer would try to refute the science bound up in it. Yet he tried to bolster his blog with the ridiculous: “life thrived” during these periods of traumatic change. These were periods when CO2 concentration changed in matching sequence. Periods when species, not just individuals, died out in their millions.
Yes, some life survived them, and later thrived after evolving to suit the changed environments. Algae has certainly hung in there – evidenced as 3 billion year old fossil Stromatolites at “North Pole” in W.A. to the now-living Stromatolites in Shark Bay.
But, our own species are unlikely survivors - having been pushing beyond sustainable limits for ten thousand years – the whole duration of most benign climate it has ever experienced. It now pushes the limits far more than before.
What zealous purpose does Ian Plimer have in peddling nonsense – that life has bridged big changes over eons of geologic time (by species evolution he does not say), and therefore Homo sapiens has no need to worry?
I wish he would give us a break. I would like my mob to be able to hang in there comfortably for a bit longer.

For the sake of arguments.
If all scientists and climatologists admitted that it is the Sun and not CO2..what do you think would happen??

Alzo, oh AAAAAAAllllllllzzoooooooooo.
Where are you?

I thought you were going to back up your claim that solar forcings could be delayed by 20 to 30 years through some kind of as yet unidentified mechanism.

See, there I was thinking that heat from the sun pretty much hit the earth at the speed of light… and so could only be "delayed" by about 6 to 8 minutes (however long light takes to get here), but then you went and confused me by suggesting that it could be delayed by decades. What, did "Biiirdman!" collect it and release it later or something? (Birdman was the 1967 solar-powered cartoon hero.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birdman_and_the_Galaxy_Trio

While I’m on solar & climate, I need to correct a typo I made earlier. I wrote:

(I'm glad you accept the glaring fact that global temperature stopped rising post 2000).

I of course meant to say

“I'm glad you accept the glaring fact that solar energy decreased post 2000” — of course referring to the king-hit against solar being the main driver of climate. Namely…

Temperatures continue to RISE
Solar insolation has in fact DECREASED

See the Solar Flare Index which clearly shows the 7 year decline in solar activity from 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation

Any Durkinites out there want to explain that one please?

I guess my AGW scepticism is instinctive,
- because the theory of anthropogenic CO2 induced global warming preceded the evidence - the origin of the current hysteria was not "the discovery of global warming but the possibility of global warming..... it was not possible to detect anthropogenic warming in 1980" (The Discovery of Global Warming, by Spencer Weart). Michael Duffy has put it neatly, "If global warming didn't exist, it would have been necessary to invent it."

- because of the dubious roles played by 'activist scientists' many relics of the loopy counter culture of the 60s and 70s (or influenced by it) - e.g. James Lovelock.

- because of the role of 'activist scientists' in the establishment of the IPCC and their propensity to go beyond the traditional boundaries of science.

- because of the ready adoption of the AGW faith by all manner of charlatans, carpet baggers and power hungry demagogues.

- because of the part played by the Left which, following the collapse of international socialism, has adopted AGW as their 'cause du jour' - they like the so-called 'cures' which are anti-development and anti-capitalist - preferring some some insane utopian ideal that seems to owe more to the Teletubbies than to Marx.

- because of AGW zealots' false evidence such as the Mann 'hockey stick' diagram which even I could recognize (from general pre-AGW literature and history) was dodgy as well as fatuous assertions like "The underlying cause of climate change since about 1800 is human activity'.

-because of the refusal of AGW zealots to consider any alternative factors and their seeming mad scramble to hurriedly counter any new evidence that may challenge their dearly held theory.

-because of AGW zealots' almost religious fervor, their increasing shrillness and their resort to every known logical fallacy (including argumentum ad nauseam), debating trick, personal abuse and general bitchiness in order to quash dissent.

re:
"- because of the part played by the Left which, following the collapse of international socialism, has adopted AGW as their 'cause du jour' - they like the so-called 'cures' which are anti-development and anti-capitalist - preferring some some insane utopian ideal that seems to owe more to the Teletubbies than to Marx."

Admiral,
I suggest you have a look at the work of Amory Lovins, who has been working on energy alternatives for over 30 years. You may convincingly argue that he is green, but he es far from "left". Energy efficiency is the strategy he has successfully pursued, and continues to pursue through the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI).

I suggest you check out their website and see whether they are as anti-capitalist as you might presume.

I am satisfied that
(1) "Science never proves anything" (attributable to Gregory Bateson)
(2) Global warming is a threat worth taking very seriously
and
(3)Energy use must be significantly cut, and can be cut in such a way that first, second and third world economies and societies can manage.

Times change. Industries change. In Australia, manufacturing industries have steadily disappeared, and not because of the left, but rather because of globalisation Have a look at the past 20 years and argue otherwise. Be sure to include the example of Ford's Geelong plant, and the 600 jobs to be lost there.

As for the coal and oil industries, I see chemical feedstocks being burnt as though nothing much mattered beyond profitability over the next 20 years. These are irreplaceable chemical feedstocks. To me, burning them for immediate profit is like burning antique furniture to keep warm; a measure for the most desperate circumstances. The companies which own them and are selling them indiscriminately need to look at how they can diversify into more sustainable energy-related markets and strategies.

Good points Sir Vivor.

Admiral, “Greenies” and “Lefties” and “Teletubbies” doesn’t prove a thing. Sheer name calling doesn’t even constitute what we call an “argument” either.

Science invented the hydrogen bomb — but some end of the world cults and survivalist movements have sprung up around it. So what? The bomb still exists even though there are nutters.

Science invented tinfoil — but some people use it to make silly hats that “prevent aliens listening to their brainwaves”. So what? Tinfoil does not stop existing just because there are some nutters.

Science discovered Co2 stores heat in the atmosphere about 100 years ago — but some neo-primitivists dance naked around their campfires and sing songs about global warming sending us back to the stone age. So what? That doesn’t prevent the earth warming up, the glaciers melting, summer melt-water drying up and forcing millions to move. Global warming will attract nutters because of some of the more apocalyptic scenarios — but it does not prevent Global Warming involving state of the art science.

Remember your high school English please. Try to use propositions, facts, and counter-arguments. Just stating that the hockey stick graph “was dodgy” does not debunk the work of thousands of climatologists. Just calling the conclusions of multiple fields of science “fatuous” does not make the hard data go away. Both fail the Year 7 English test principle.

Trotting out every anti-greenie cliché you can think of does not actually rescue the Durkinite alternative theory from some very “inconvenient truths”. Why is the earth getting warmer? It’s not the sun. Over the last 7 years the sun has been fractionally cooler while the earth became warmer — please explain.

And please stop the silly name calling. Or do I indulge in calling you a right-wing Liberal voting big business capitalist that just wants an excuse to chop the old growth forests down to make some money, dang the consequences?