Thanks for that "opportunity cost" link Eclipse. Did you know Greg Craven's also written a book?

So meme you say "Conservatives advise:

"Let’s continue taking care of our planet and progress to making life even better for more people of the world.”

Meme old chap - If it weren't for the conservatives taking "care" of the planet, we wouldn't be talking climate change. These grim reapers have violated all laws of nature, all laws pertaining to the Precautionary Principle and are using humans as cannon fodder.

Last night's news saw a win for some 12 young people in the UK who were all born with missing fingers and toes, a result of industrial pollution spewed out with impunity by your conservatives - well up to now. I suspect you'd better get your running shoes on meme since this legal victory for these deformed young people could set a predecent and hopefully the 250 Australians suing Alcoa in the US for cancers and deaths in Australia, will have a similar outcome.

I envisage that in the near future, the obscene and uncontrolled operations of your conservatives will be viewed more widely as crimes, not only against the planet but against humanity. Already countries from Papua to Argentina are demanding their human rights, a result of Australian and Canadian miners pillaging and plundering the lands of the poor and destroying their ecosystems for hundreds of years.

BTW meme. "echotheism?" Mmmmmmmm? Right - "echotheism?" OK.......hellooooooooo......anyboooooodddy theeerrrrrrre? Yoooooooohoooooooo? Nope no echoes yet. Aw give up Protagoras. OK meme. What's the definition of "echotheism?" Is it code for rock ape speak?

Just what exactly would have to happen to prove the theory wrong?

Surrendering one’s self to a higher power is the unavoidable consequence of being human and conscious. This wired-in and basic urge is now compelling us on mass, in our largely godless society to blindly sacrifice ourselves to living with less, consuming less, needing less and wanting less. All to a greater power simply called “earth”. A planet that we mortals have harmed and are being punished for? And all at a time when we are living longer than at any time in human history as a species despite endless news about deadly pollution and access to quality health care. I ask you, why would anyone would wish for this misery to happen that is clearly a bit a stretch of truth and reality because there isn’t a crisis that you or I or anyone can see or experience. Where IS this climate crisis that has brought Nature to her knees after billions of years? Do yourself a favor and at least try to be optimistic on your journey to responsible environmentalism. In your mind, stop panicking for this thought experiment:” Remove this mistaken idea that CO2, Nature’s gift to plants and thus all life on earth, is, after 23 years of warnings, still a deadly poison killing our planet. What do we have left after the CO2 fear is gone? Ask yourself what do we have left to worry about or more realistically, have to be grateful for.”
Fear when used as the only motivator always clouds the issue. Strip away the media and political and cultural blanket of fear we allow ourselves to smother us with and take a closer look at your world, not the staged picture of the polar bear at Google. Be grateful for our defeat of the smoggy 70’s when a river caught fire in Ohio and be quietly satisfied with our enhanced environmental awareness, protections, laws, technology and standards.
A mature-progressive human species of the 21rst century, preserves, protects and respects nature.

"What would the climate have to do at this point to prove the theory was 100% dead wrong?"

Meme attempts to psychoanalyse WHY we are wrong, rather than prove THAT we are wrong. It's an old logical fallacy that can be so easily turned on its head. What if I told you the REALITY is that you're just a retard not willing to accept modern science because you're a scared little infant unable to grow up and accept that the civilisation you're a part of is in peril?

"I ask you, why would anyone would wish for this misery to happen"
We don't wish for it, we just acknowledge the truth and look at all the great things we could do to avoid it.

"Remove this mistaken idea that CO2, Nature’s gift to plants and thus all life on earth"
We've been here before remember, or is your memory as hampered as your cognitive ability? Water is natural, but a flood can still kill you and wipe out crops. Snow is natural, but an avalanche can wipe out a whole village. Air is natural, but Katrina killed thousands.

"What would the climate have to do at this point to prove the theory was 100% dead wrong?"
The average global temperature would have to decline for decades to come. Instead, we note that the last decade was the hottest on record. The average OCEAN temperature would also have to drop as it takes 1000 times more energy to raise the temperature of the oceans than air, and so the oceans are a massive thermal "bank" storing the heat energy. This is a very frightening thought!

Kalin

The only way you can get past the ‘pay-wall’ into Science Magazine is to subscribe. I believe you can do this for $50 p.a. (US I think) for the online version - certainly cheaper than the hard copy and more environmentally friendly. I don’t have these problems being a member. For a more in depth review of ‘climate science’ it may be better to look at other sources, for example; the International Journal of Climatology, the Journal of Climate, the Journal of Atmospheric Sciences or Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, amongst others. Where does a lawyer stop, let alone an ‘agnostic’ layperson? As to ‘sceptics’ (I use the term loosely on OLO) – they don’t even venture to the IPCC’s freely available published reports.

That “contrary link” you found interesting was from Roy Spencer. Somewhat dated but nevertheless a signature of his enduring search for the elusive negative water vapour feedback. Sometimes I can’t help but feel this God-fearing scientist just wants to find ‘something’ other than Man as a primary driver of this latest round of climate change. Be that as it may, even Plimer has strong criticisms of the creationists’ theories.

Anyway, there is much research (and debate within the scientific community) into clouds and it is wrong for some people to suggest otherwise. It is also wrong for some people to suggest CO2 is the only ‘driver’ of climate change. Nevertheless, there is overwhelming research in support of AGW. I can only assume you (as a lawyer) know what this means in terms of judgements on weight of evidence.

Cont’d

Cont’d

It is impossible to adequately/legitimately criticise any piece of writing without having read the piece, or understood what the author is saying. Equally, it is erroneous to distort what has been written, or taking out of context what has been said. This is precisely what is wrong with Plimer’s latest effort – he is in error on so many counts. Btw, have you finished reading Heaven & Earth yet? While he has got good stuff in H&E, his “A Short History of Planet Earth” is much better, and certainly more aligned to his expertise, imo.

If Plimer is genuine, he should correct all the factual errors that has been pointed out to him and make the amendments for the next print run – he has not done this for either the American or British editions.

Questions.

1. CO2 sometimes leads, sometimes lags. “Runaway global warming” has happened in pre-history (I don’t know where you are getting your info from) and has taken decades to thousands of years, depending on the trigger.

2. The CO2 cycle is complex but that is not to say it is “poorly understood”. You want more sir (apologies to Oliver) – try “The Global Carbon Cycle – Integrating Humans, Climate and the Natural World (edited by Field and Raupach) – alas, you have to pay if you can’t borrow.

No matter which way you look at it (and the accounting isn’t as bad as you imply), humanity is spewing carbon out at a faster rate that the oceans, atmosphere and terrestrial biosphere can absorb.

3. True – with a big BUT.

4. I have nothing to concede here Kalin. Of course there will be an opportunity cost lost. However, there will be a bigger opportunity cost lost the longer we twiddle our thumbs. Those that think adapting to a warmer and wetter world, or reducing our dependency on fossil fuels will cost little, are deluding themselves. In the end, it’s all about priorities, choice. I am not optimistic.

____

Eclipse

mememine69 can't understand stratospheric cooling.

I am finished with this thread.