Yep

Quote ;yet another that implies that the Darling has always been stuffed, and lastly one that blatantly denies the mountains of evidence for global warming.

Algal Blooms in the Darling , Wakool etc are not uncommon , you are attributing them to Global Warming.

After the 1956 floods huge lagoons left full by receding water levels led to algal blooms that killed millions of fish some people called them Chad . The fish initially came to the surface and gulped air then the Algae died (oxygen depletion ?) then very quickly the fish .

Do you think Global Warming started in 1956 ?

Shazbaz
ACC actually started 60k-40k years ago. But back then the impact was within the natural flexibility in the environment.
Since 1700 the ecological stress has progressively gotten faster there is evidence of this migrating species going higher climes since the late 1930. It wasn't until the late 1960's that man started to notice the trend as being measurable. It has continued to gather speed and now appears to be a collection of weird ecological events. No where in history has all the elements occurred at the same time without catastrophic consequences. Some are saying that some events are unique in the geological time line. The big conundrum is these events portend a series of collapses in habitats hence the environment. The outcome is currently disputed by some ( the same fear laden myopic reasoning that creates conspiracy theories) however it is indisputable that the changes are real and WILL be catastrophic.
Leaving the salient question what do we do about it currently very little. In the final shake out it matters very little what caused you to starve only that you are.

Clown fish
CJ is right the fact that you posed the question declare your lack of understanding of evolution. The salient issue here is the speed and the lack of new species to fill the gaps in the food web that concerns people like me. Many niches are just not being adequately functionally filled. Logic dictates that this indicate an unravelling of the web and therefore dire consequences.

I really think that Godwin's Law needs to be rigourously applied to the word "Denialist" and its permutations in any discussion on Climate Change.

Disagree in any way with the Human-Induced Climate Change orthodoxy and, bam!, you're a "denialist". No doubt you also eat kittens, too.

Read the article again, C J Morgan. What does it describe? Changes in environmental conditions leading to alterations in various ecological niches, with new species adapting to take advantage of the changed environment.

Sure sounds like evolution - or at least, adaptation - to me.

Except, of course, for the conceit that it's all the fault of us wicked humans.

CJ Morgan: It is indeed sad when a specialist lays out a bit of experience and this is interpreted according to the "big topics" of the day.
Curmudgeon: Where is this "widely acknowledged" evidence that cooling stopped in 2000? I read the scientific journals and I've seen no such thing. Perhaps the Right Wing magazines are not the best source on this issue? Maybe you should read some actual science done by actual scientists? Or would this be too biased for you?
Sadly, the creationists are getting ready for the Rapture and so couldn't give a hoot about the biosphere thingy.
Clownfish: Evolution is generally accepted to take place over many generations. Adaptation is impacted by the evolutionary past of a species, but the process of short term adaption is not the same as the process of evolution at all.
EG. A fish species that has spent many many generations in shallow, stagnant water may develop air-gulping as an adaption to the poorly oxygenated water. This is a long way from lungs, which is the permanent evolutionary change. We know that lungs came from swim bladders due to the genetics and the physiology of each (good argument against ID: Why the epiglottis?), but a fish adapting by gulping air is not necessarily on the path to evolving lungs. Evolution involves millions of breeding cycles, adaptation can be done by individuals.
The genuine fear is that human induced GW can and will change things so much, and so fast that many species cannot evolve, or adapt quickly enough. Plenty of cockroaches and slimes will survive, but not the sort of flora and fauna that humans can use or admire.
It is true to say that a big volcano would have the same effect. It is also true that we can see and choose, whilst the volcano cannot. We can potentially act as stewards of God's creatures instead of just the butchers or the blind recipients of nature's karma.

Ozandy - I was referring to the records kept by the temperature tracking sites themselves - they all compile graphs which show a distinct peak and downward slide since 2000.. all the graphs show this except the ones kept by the Goddard Institute, which shows temperatures level pegging..

There are five sites - Goddard, Hadley, NOAA, RSS and UAH.

This is very well known and has been discussed. It appears in the literature as attempts by scientists to modify IPCC forecats with climate cycles to accomodate the decline without losing the IPCC findings.. (see Keenlyside, check spelling, in letters Nature May 1 of last year). Otherwise the literature skates over this point or refers to acceleration in melting of glaciers ect.. not global temperatures..