” Of course, neither adaptation nor mitigation alone will be sufficient…”

If the author believes that adaptation will be insufficient (and there is no such thing as mitigation when it comes to climate change), he is in for a very worrying time.

The globe has been warmer than it is now in times past, and people successfully adapted and society flourished. And, let’s not forget that there has been no warming since 1998. In modern times, there was warming from 1850-1940, cooling from 1940-1976, warming from 1976-1998 and cooling since 1998.
“… the effects of climate destabilisation can be contained perhaps only by emergency action to stabilise and then reduce CO2 levels.” This is another theory that has never been tested.

No relationship between measured temperatures and CO2 emissions has been proved.

“To argue that modern climate is driven by slight changes in a trace gas (CO2) requires many non-scientific leaps of faith”. (Ian Plimer, “Heaven + Earth” Page 87).

The world has been warmer than it is now when there was no industrialised production of CO2.

Previous inhabitants of Earth adapted, and civilization and well-being flourished in times of warming.

These climate change hysterics seem to think that we modern people don’t have what it takes to adapt. If they are right, there is no hope for us, because adaptation is all we have.

The author mentions the calculations of Svante Arrhenius as many have in recent years, but does not mention that CO2 warming has a cut off point or saturaction effect. If CO2 concentrations are doubled, it is expected that temperatures may rise by 0.6 degrees, all else being equal, and that's it. The bulk of this increase may well have already occured. The point about the limited affect of CO2 itself is not in dispute. The climate models get their vast increases in temperatues by assuming major feedback effects from that warming.
But even if climate sensitivity to CO2 concentrations is high (and there is some doubt on that point) I would hesitate to endorse efforts to cool the earth artificially. So much is unknown about climate that any such effort could backfire..

As the climate has cooled now for ten years ?
Secondly if CO2 is a problem why are we not supporting the MIS Forestry and further why are we not planting new Forests .
I recall back in the 60's I was with some people who visited Castlemaine in Vic to buy some motorcycle parts , this guy was the Australian and World Scrambles Champion Les Shehan , unfortunately we missed him ; we were advised that he purchased a tractor and he and Wife and children every weekend planted Pine trees in the Forrest apparently sponsored by the Govt? Somehow they must have got paid . My understanding now is nothing like this happens ? Strange given people , indeed a majority now believe in non science/history based CO2 intrusion / destruction on our Planets atmosphere , the time has arrived perhaps to harness these people , disciples of the CO2 doctrine
which ever way it is their actions will be positive this is a win win situation .
Another positive contribution would be to agitate for the RAAF to provide fire mapping and coordination of services so the Fire Brigades and people living in the Fire Prone areas can be advised with instant precision ; where they are ; how to navigate away from fire path; Use munitions to remove trees or canopies in the fire path ; coordinate rescue of both Service and Civilians .
Promote Forest floor manual clean ups , engage Service Clubs etc not to do the work but to provide coordination and learn about fire prone Forrest's etc in their areas , clean ups should happen every 2 yrs .
If this is done correctly canopy flares will be minimized and millions of tons of carbon will be locked up in the trees , people will not be fried alive , it's another win win situation .

Nothing new to see here. These AGW rants are getting as dull and predictable as Peter Sellick's monthly sermon on how only Christians can be good something-or-others. I don't ask that AGW credulists necessarily agree with the other side, or even bother to familiarise themselves with all the evidence on that side, but it would be nice if they acknowledged that there was some justified doubt. What does it say about a movement when it can only survive by closing its eyes and ears to criticism and shouting down the opposition? Peter could probably tell us something about that too.

Jon J writes

'I don't ask that AGW credulists necessarily agree with the other side, or even bother to familiarise themselves with all the evidence on that side, but it would be nice if they acknowledged that there was some justified doubt.'

NO difference from evolutionist. Just blind dogma.

I am presently reading Ian Plimer's book Heaven and Earth, and a very interesting read it is. The IPCC seem to stretch the truth of their facts and figures just a bit. No, actually, quite a lot.

Personally I find it interesting that suddenly we are being warned about "climate change" as opposed to "global warming". The words seem to be changing and I wonder why that is. Is it because, yes, we do have climate change, in fact climate change happens all the time? We can't change the climate though. What an incredibly egotistical bunch some are to think humans can. Nature will do what it does and there is nothing man can do about it.

It was in the late 1970's, we were being informed that a new Ice Age was beginning in more or less the same scare mongering terms although there was no access to the net as there is now.

Some of those 'scientists' and I use that description loosely regarding those people, have now turned the scare tactic story to 'global warming' for, one assumes, political reasons and financial remuneration. The IPCC has always been a politically motivated committee anyway.

Do IPCC advisors believe people cannot recall what was being said in the late 1970's, there are many of us still out here.