Can't believe it, beat them to it!

Any minute now we will be joined by "leigh", "runner", 'rpg" and all the usual suspects.

They will then start "banging on" about how believers in AGW have been conned, it is all a giant conspiracy. all of the scientists at enterprises such as the CSIRO, universities around the world etc are only saying there is AGW to ensure continuity of grants, employment etc etc. They will post a few links to reams of charts proving that it has been getting cooler since 1998.

The problem for governments such as Victoria is that this misinformation is starting to bite. They use exactly the same tactics as the tobacco lobby used for decades; namely suggest that "the science is not proven", there is general disagreement amongst the world's scientific community and on and on.

It is hardly surprising that governments are starting to "blink".

Fiona - Bex, good lie down.

OMG the world is ending again, its everyone's fault and a very special finger wagging at those questioners known to the industry as skeptics and to the AGW believers as "DENIERS!" (shout loudly that last word, try to sound hurt and offended as well)

Peter, I don't actually post links as I think the Google wars are pointless as everyone can find links to suit their corner's POV. I don't go on about conspiracies either.

Good thing you stopped there before you looked like a complete fool.

BTW - "the science in not proven", if it was, you wouldn't need to post panicky defenses sneering at other people.

This author, like so many others has completely lost the perspective in which Australia and Victoria should be viewed. An emotional almost hysterical allegation that Victorians are the worst per capita polluters in the world, and single handedly can make any kind of difference whatsoever, is unsustainable. There are only about five million people in Victoria. It is one quarter the size of Mumbai, and its per capita pollution, makes up a minuscule part of the worlds CO2 production.

It is a bit like a mouse standing on its hind legs and telling the world it is an elephant, or a lion. The Victorian Government has no jurisdiction over any other part of the world, and even a fifty percent reduction in gas emissions would not make any world difference whatsoever. As for saying we will destroy ourselves if we don’t act, that is another example of wrong thinking.

Unless we can persuade the whole world to act in concert, any action here is an exercise in masochism. A self inflicted and pointless punishment of a people by its government without any possible benefit is not intelligent.

The author would be better off if she simply went to Church and prayed that the world will cope. It will because it always has, and nature has a way of balancing things out in the long run. Science has its uses, but when used as a scare mongering tool by people whose vision does not extend to the big picture, and who do not view Australia as a very big place with a very small population, calls for draconian measures are out of place.

What this author is advocating is a green dictatorship. A country where there are huge penalties for creating jobs. Massive unemployment must follow, because if the proposed taxes are levied, they must be paid, and employment will suffer. The books must balance

The appeals to ‘morals’ and ‘ethics’ and other religious dogma never changes; the same old same old that ignores the fact that there is nothing scientific about man-made climate change and the fear of the trace gas CO2 which actually FOLLOWS warming (rather than causing it) and is essential to our well being.

The ‘science’ these harbingers of doom yammer on about is not science at all. Science has been replaced by consensus; there has been no investigation into any of the other elements which could, and do, effect climate.

Most of all, the climate itself is not doing the ‘right thing’ by these witchdoctors; it is actually cooling. This doesn’t seem to faze the hysterics at all (although they refuse to discuss it), and they push on with their fundamentalist ‘religion’ – for that’s what it is; a new, green religion – as they search for meaning and control through control of the environment and people who, like the victims of all fundamentalist religions are frighted out of their wits. The media has done an excellent job in contributing to the fear that has seen scared, ignorant people saying, “Save us. Save the planet, Help us, please” to politicians who are only two happy increase tax gathering and being able to say that the people have asked for their help, and that’s all they are doing.

After it is discovered that the monetary imposts and hardship will not make one iota of difference to the climate, it will be too late.

It will be too late to stop the disappearance of more Australian industries as China and India continue business as usual. Russia will be looking forward to the demise of Western economies, too. They rejected the absurdity of man-made climate change long ago.

The lost of polar ice Armstrong is reiterating is merely the end of a process that started eons ago. All part of natural climate change.

Continued...

...continued

Make no mistake, we are threatening ourselves with extinction (and quickly) if we do not demand that this government and the Australian government act quickly to avert dangerous climate change”, squeals Armstrong. What a load of alarmist, childish bumph! Doesn’t this person know anything about history and mans’ ability to adapt to nature’s vagaries? The Australian government – no government – can “avert dangerous climate change”. Climate change is no more dangerous now that it has even been, and we have the same ability to adapt to it as ancient people did. We should have more ability, in fact, and scientists would do much better concentrating on adaptation instead of indulging in silly scare-mongering for quick bucks.

In years to come, Fiona Armstrong’s Masters in climate change policy will be of great embarrassment to her.

Why it is that it is the Victorians that dominate the propagation of all this nonsense? Why is it that it is Melbourne that is the home of most of these environmental nut cases like Karoly and the HQ of both the BOM and the CSIRO?

Why is that it is the same state that is holding the rest of Australia to ransom over the Murray Darling Basin, and fiddling the books, by taking the most, and doing the least with it.?

Why is that despite political a diatribe like the 4.5mb document referenced, that these same people don’t tell us, that if the whole of Australia does comply with the most dire reductions, it will make no measurable difference to a reduction in global temperatures, and do nothing for our collective negotiating position in world forums.?

Why is that the convocation of the scientific ninnies that abound in Victoria can’t tell the whole truth, and that we can have no effect, even if we adopt the most radical targets.

What sort of governments do we have, even in Victoria for gods sake, that would put thousands out of work and hamstring economies for an outcome that can’t be measured, even for Victoria.

Why is it that no one points out what a biased load of rubbish it is to have a league table of per capita outputs of Co2 emissions,( see p2 etc) and not equate it to the land and sea area occupied by the same emitters?

Why it that if a league table for nation states is produced, that includes the variable for the land and area occupied, then Australia is one of the best, and the Europeans are by far the worst. ?

They never have answers for this sort of stuff, just glossier b/s and bias.

Fionna writes
'We have the technology. We must find the resources, and the courage, as a community, to demand our political leaders make a legislative commitment to return our climate to one that is safe to inhabit and will continue to be so.'

Yea sure Fionna. And at what point was our climate safe? Victoria is a State bereft of morals as shown by the killing not only of early but late term unborn babies. Why is it we have to pretend a fake morality to hide man's degradation. To use pseudo science in justification for this false morality stinks. The self righteousness of the Green movement knows no bounds.

Fiona:

Your words are beginning to sound shrill. They convey an air of desperation. Give it up. With each passing day, more and more people see the fallacies of your AGW beliefs for what they are: unfounded. People become reluctant to acquiesce to authority when authority is challenged for cause, and when they are given enough information to think for themselves.

Simply put, we are approaching the point where AGW science and its climate models must finally survive scrutiny in the light of day. I applause those scientists, men and women of honor, who show the fortitude to stand up before the world and say, "It isn't so!"

Given that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a small fraction of the annual natural CO2 emissions, that anthropogenic CO2 behaves exactly the same way as naturally emitted CO2 in the atmosphere in terms of ‘greenhouse effect’, that both natural and anthropogenic CO2 are reabsorbed within a 3 to 12 year time period (this time frame is supported by about 90% of all the peer-reviewed literature) and that, in part, anthropogenic CO2 is absorbed locally by vegetation, then this raises questions about how effective globally or locally applied emissions trading schemes (ETS) will be in reducing current and future anthropogenic CO2 levels equivalent to a proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 levels emitted in the year 2000 (or 1990, as is sometimes quoted).

As a researcher the greatest reduction I can find, assuming a globally applied ETS, was the indeterminate ‘several’ ppm of total atmospheric CO2, in other words, a reduction from the current 387ppm to, approximately, 380ppm. Given that an ETS is designed to only reduce anthropogenic CO2 and not the 50% to over 90% (depending on the reference) of natural CO2 outgassed from oceans or transpired by plants then what difference will an ETS make? The easy answer is, of course: no difference whatsoever!

Peter K...well...you are of course so right. Here they all are. A danger to themselves and others, clearly in need of psychological help of some kind, but I fear it's too late for them. And you are also right that they should be kept away from politicians, who are also deeply ill of course, and like tends to attract like.

Guys...just try stopping your idealogical hatred of the colour green getting in the way of your brains. And it is of course, not just about "evidence", it's also about common sense and risk management.

Duh.."there is no evidence whatsoever that Hitler is going to invade Poland, and anyone saying so is a doomsayer, and here...I have this piece of paper that proves it". Rock on.

Serious researching of climate change policy should start with the rigorous analysis of the causes of climate change. The IPCC was set up for the purpose of finding scientific evidence to support the adoption of the greenhouse theory. After 20 years of searching, the IPCC has been unable to come up with any convincing evidence. In fact, the strongest endorsement that the IPCC can give in its 2007 Report, is the assertion: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”.
Fiona presumably is influenced by the IPCC’s alarmist climate change projections that are derived with the use of computer climate models and quoted widely in the media. She should be aware that none of these models has ever been validated. Consequently, its models cannot be relied on for prediction purposes, and the projections can be regarded only as speculative.
She should be aware that the IPCC reports have been tainted with essentially false statements, e.g. regarding the ‘sulphate aerosol factor’, the ‘discernible human influence’ controversy, the’ hockey stick’ scandal. Further material that seriously questions the credibility and integrity of the IPCC's activities and claims may be found at http://mclean.ch/climate/IPCC.htm , which lists some 50 articles.
Climate science is not settled. The available observations do not support the mathematical models that predict a substantial global warming and form the basis for a control policy on greenhouse gas emissions. Whereas CO2 emissions have continued to increase, global temperatures have not risen in the past 10 years. In fact, there is no convincing scientific evidence that global warming or climate change is man-caused.
Climate history observations point to global warming being a natural process, with celestial phenomena being the principal driver of climate. Solar variability is considered as the leading hypothesis to explain climate change.

There is no scientific or economic justification for the socalled carbon pollution reduction scheme policy. The policy is not in the national interest, as it is being driven on unfounded political grounds. Therefore, the approach is neither moral nor ethical.

E,Sykes "Peter K...well...you are of course so right. Here they all are. A danger to themselves and others, clearly in need of psychological help of some kind" (what kind, drugs, electric shock?)

Ah censorship by bullying, just love it. What's up E.Sykes, not up to it so you resort to vicious personal attacks?

Wouldn't it be great if everyone who disagreed with you just went away! (boo hoo princess!)

"A danger to themselves and others", no not really but I'm sure your religious beliefs support thinking that way.

As odo says, "A Bex and a good lie down" is probably what you should try as well.

"it's also about common sense and (selective) risk management."

Duh.."there is no evidence whatsoever that 'Iran' is going to 'Nuke Israel', and anyone saying so is a doomsayer, and here...I have this piece of paper that proves it". Rock on.

So let's see you reduce risk smartypants, call for nuking Iran (and North Korea) if it's all about risk management.

Duh! Rock On. Far out man. Wow.

Funny,

I would have thought the moral and ethical approach to climate change would be to get the most benefit with the least impact to the economy and population.

Shredding the economy for zero benefit if the rest of the world does not follow is moronic.

OLO really has become climate change Denialism Central, hasn't it?

Fortunately, these people are in the minority - which is probably why they seem to be getting more strident as governments everywhere start to act to ameliorate where possible the effects of anthropogenic warming.

CJ

When you consider the beliefs of its editor, it is no surprise that OLO is a haven for the "business-as-usual" crowd. Not once has any of them offered a valid reason to use all our natural resources and to continue to pollute our rovers, oceans and skies.

One does not have to accept anthropogenic influence to know that we (homo sapiens) need to become self sustainable in our use of this world's resources. Also that we are not the only inhabitants of this planet and no longer can continue to breed like rabbits.

Fractelle

You really are naive or deceitful. You write
'Not once has any of them offered a valid reason to use all our natural resources and to continue to pollute our rovers, oceans and skies.'

To label man made climate change skeptics as not caring about the environment is absolute nonsense. The fact that they don't swallow Greens religion is a credit to their intelligence. True believers of man made climate change (who seem to be diminishing) can see not answer the simple question of why temperatures have cooled while emissions increased. No wonder people are starting to treat the earth worshippers with contempt.

More vacuous nonsense from CJ Morgan.

If anyone is getting strident it is the alarmanistas, as the auther of this idiot piece would be a testimony to.

This would followed closely by her own reference material. A Victorian Govt document for the mindless masses of that state to swallow,aided and abetted by alarmists like Karoly

On top of this one could heep the extremist document produced by the Copenhagen scientists last week as a politically inspired piece of work funded by the leftist government of Denmark.

The boot wouldnt be on the other foot would it?

Wow I am so pleased we have a time frame. Five to ten years and the Artic Ice is gone well I am happy to wait and bore these [deleted for vulgarity and poster warned]senseless when it just dosent happen.
I collect stories like these as I know these pumpkins will reemerge later probably as politicians and this can be used against them then lol.

The pseudo-skeptics on OLO have made themselves very unattractive and not for any good reason. Hanging out from self-interest, the greed merchants defecate any place they like, ignoring the science, ignoring the fact that a hundred and eighty four countries have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol. And Rudd won office on a climate change platform. It's called democracy!

Australia's top scientists have reviewed Plimer's book, arriving at consensus that the book is fraudulent and a nonsense but the buzzards keep circling.....panicked and afraid. Be afraid deniers for your time has passed. Religious right-wing fascism has no place in an enlightened world and we note they have lost control in the Whitehouse - "stuffed" as they say in Oz. The citizens of the world will no longer tolerate despots who want only to continue plundering the planet's ecosystems and turning them into rubble for a profit.

And the topic, seemingly irrelevant to the deniers, is Victoria, which has the dirtiest coal-fired power stations in Australia, and the most polluting in the developed world. Victoria's use of filthy brown coal is driving Australia's carbon pollution problem. Victoria was Australia's worst greenhouse performer across a number of emissions indicators in 2008.

Country - Most polluting station - CO2 intensity (Mt/TWh)

Australia Hazelwood, Victoria 1.58
USA Edwardsport, Indiana 1.56
Germany Frimmersdorf 1.27
Canada H.R. Milner 1.25
Mexico C. TG. Portes Gil, Rio Bravo 1.18
Poland Belchatów 1.09
Czech Republic Prunerov 1.07
Japan Niihamanishi 1.02
UK Cockenzie 0.99
Italy Porto Tolle 0.78 (Source WWF-Australia)

In addition to Victoria’s shameful history on pollution (think Shell)is the matter of the state's bushfires this year, which have released massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (not included for assessment in the Kyoto Protocol.)

Hazardous farm chemicals, fuels, asbestos, solvents, plastics etc, burnt in Victoria’s bushfires have also added to the poor state of Australia’s environment. These substances have no respect for geographical boundaries, are persistent in the environment, pollute and destroy ecosystems and contaminate the food chain.

But this is nothing for the evasive, guiltless and divinely guided deniers to worry about, is it?

"Wow I am so pleased we have a time frame. Five to ten years and the Artic (sic) Ice is gone well I am happy to wait and bore these twats senseless when it just dosent (sic) happen."

JBowyer - do please provide a link to support the above claims and let us all know who these "twats" are.

And since you are privy to such valuable information on Arctic ice, why can't you spell it?

"Dirty brown coal" tends to emit more particulate pollution, doesn't it. That's bad. However, the soot particles reflect solar radiation, cooling the surface. That's good.

This factoid brings to mind another factoid. As industrialized countries worked to capture pollutants from smoke stacks and auto exhausts, they generally cleaned up their air. Then they noticed fairly rapid temperature rises. Some went so far as to describe this increase, when graphed, as the shape of a hockey stick.

You don't suppose that use of emission controls ...of scrubbing pollutants from the air...has not been duly credited with its role in global warming?

This brings to mind yet another factoid. Some scientist has recently proposed spreading soot in the atmosphere to reflect solar radiation and cool the planet. If this suggestion comes to pass, we will have gone full-circle. Environmentalists mean well, but all too often their best laid plans produce unintended consequences. "Take the pollution out of the air....now put it back in..."

One last factoid. Back in 1975, when global cooling was in vogue, some scientists advocated spreading soot on polar ice to absorb solar radiation. Of course this was never done. But it should amaze us all to discover that it is soot which will either save or destroy the planet!

Move over, CO2. There's a new kid on the block!

"What should the Victorian Government be doing?"

Well, here's an idea: how about suppressing any study which gives contrary results to the ones you want to hear?

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/obamas_epa_makes_a_mockery_of.html

The replies to this thread are interesting, revealing how desperate ideologists are to deny current changes to the environment, ecology and sustainability of the planet will effect it's ability to support life as we are know it comfortably.

If ideological humans had a conscience, which replies here demonstrate they lack any form of care or thought for the sustainable life on this planet, they would be doing all they could to ensure their life was in harmony and enhancing to the planet, rather than gluttonous egocentrically destructive. It's not a fallacy violent and polluting human activities are causing increasing extinctions of those living beings which are essential to the biological food chain of life. Nor is it a fallacy burning fossil fuels at the rate we are is detrimental to life in general, growing evidence on land and in the seas supports that supposition.

Does it matter whether the temperatures are rising or falling, something drastic is happening to our planet which can't be denied, if you take the time to actually look around you, outside the illusionary city comfort zones . Where I live we are seeing what appears to be those effects now, as our Cray fish industry has come to a halt this year, because the shells of mature fish are very soft, and Cray's have virtually disappeared.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090625/ap_on_sc/us_sci_size_matters_2

How long do people think they can continue to rip hundreds of millions of tonnes of fish out of the oceans yearly, whilst pouring billions of tonnes of polluting chemicals and waste into rivers and oceans, along with growing large amounts of fossil fuel Co2 and other toxins, which is acidifying the seas.

Even if we are not seeing climate change, we are still destroying the planets ability to support us and other life forms, by greed filled ideological crimes against life on the planet and ideologists insane belief that they are always right, no matter the evidenced facts to the contrary.

http://www.watoday.com.au/environment/rising-ocean-temperatures-near-worstcase-predictions-20090619-cmtn.html

RPG, apologies for implying you are a Google poster.

However, "Good thing you stopped there before you looked like a complete fool." is an unnecessary comment as I simply included you with all of your fellow travelers as you all "pop up" in any articles relating to climate change.

I also was not specifically suggesting the "science was proven", I was merely referring to the rebuttal techniques you all resort to in addressing why the Victorian Government and indeed all governments are struggling.

I have a personal opinion on AGW based on the following;

...45 years ago I did a Science Degree in Biology, and that does not qualify me to comment on weather, climate or oceanic currents but does give me a view on science practitioners and their broad motives and accordingly I seriously doubt that the great majority ( please note I said majority not the exceptions) are driven by grants, subsidies or any motive outside of determining "what makes the world and its systems tick". I therefore have great difficulty in imagining that for example, the head of the CSIRO or BOM are supporting AGW for personal, political or financial gain.

cont...

cont...

...from a professional perspective I can assure all that the world's diverse species are disappearing at an accelerating rate and most 'exotic" species will be lucky to survive for more than a decade or two. This has absolutely nothing to do with AGW but is directly related to the "human footprint" on the planet; vis a vis destruction of habitat etc. If AGW does result in warming by mid century then we can already see the evidence of unnatural phenomena on the biodiversity of the planet and can reasonably extrapolate dire consequences as a result. Of course no one can predict what the loss of biodiversity might do but there will be global issues with fishing stocks and I suspect general agriculture. CO2 might be good for the plants but a temperature rise of 2+ degrees C will significantly shift arable land distribution. If Australia becomes even more arid which country will allow us to grow our sheep, beef and wheat I wonder? Can't see the Russians inviting us in really.

...we all subscribe to risk management; insuring your house against fire or the occasional falling A330 for example. It is prudent to look at consequences no matter how unlikely. If AGW is a "beat up" but we take certain steps to reduce the likelihood of consequences then surely we are practising global risk management. The current GFC should give us a not so "warm and fuzzy" feeling about letting market forces run unchecked; "BIG" business have the most to lose in short term in AGW minimization and therefore will shout loudest about loss of jobs, ruined economy etc.

So do I believe in AGW? Well its not science, science is the process of understanding what happens in our world and beyond so AGW can never be a science of itself. But on the balance of probability I can accept that AGW is a real threat.
cont...

Well Protogoras when someone is quoting the WWF Australia as their source, its no wonder the words like "evasive","guiltless" and "divinely" guided come to hand.

The home page of the WWF Australia dealing with climate change needs to have fraudulent misrepresentation added to the list.

Peter, not a worry, if you post on OLO you have to expect all manner of comments.

On risk management, I really can't agree with the way it is often applied to AGW. The posters only subscribe to risk management in a particular way. Risk management was "used" to attack Iraq, where they went after the WMDs only to find there weren't any. Did anyone then say, "but it was risk management"? it was and is used politically by the same types who want to use "risk management" on AGW.

E.Sykes used the example of WWII, but didn't respond when I asked him to apply his exact same logic to Iran and North Korea. he seems to have lost interest, probably didn't think that one through I guess.

We can't insure against the sky falling which is what "risk management" of climate is about - the climate changes, it is deemed by insurance companies to be "an act of god", we can't stop it. I don't know of anyone who actually denies that the climate changes, though CJMorgan is certain there are such people, somewhere, keep looking CJ. His confusion has reached the point he no longer addresses the articles but just the posters.

Mind you some people subscribe to Pascals Wager in a form applied to AGW, the problem is it only gives the alternatives - to believe in one solution or not to believe in that solution, just as the original form of Pascal's Wager didn't convince anyone either - it's tricky it's also bounded. What if you want to believe in a different god, Pascal's Wager didn't allow for that.

What if you believe something else beside CO2 is changing the climate? Then the AGW believers form of Pascal's Wager doesn't work.

Bottom line, you can't gamble or wager (risk management is a form of wagering) on climate change, it has no effect on changing the climate, we are impotent when it comes to climate change and that's what all the shrill alarmists can't deal with .. or to use another word, they deny.

It keeps coming up that over the last 10 years we are cooling - which I accept.

It strikes me that it is like saying today is cooler than yesterday we are therefore going to have a cold summer.

Then when I look at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/ the Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index statistics 1880 to 2008, for the last 10 years the Temperature Anomaly (°C) has increased to 0.49 degrees compared with the previous 10 years of 0.28 degrees. (reference 1880 of -0.25 degrees)

Now that is not cooling.

As I read the statistics the last 10 years were the hottest on record.

It appears that those who say we are cooling are not looking at the trends over the last 128 years and just cherry picking.

Or has NASA got it wrong? or me?

Anyway we have to many people on this planet and that is a more serious problem.

When there is only 1 billion humans then climate will not be an issue as we will move/adapt.

Protogas it was the author of the article who stated that the Arctic ice would disapear in 5-10 years and I responded to that! Perhaps if you spent as much time on comprehension as you did on spelling you would understand more?

JBowyer – I don’t believe I have a problem with comprehension but did you know that the highest form of ignorance is when one rejects something one knows nothing about?

I reiterate, where is the evidence you say you have to bore the “twats” (scientists) with, which reveals there will be no “Artic” ice melt within 5 – 10 years? Money up or shut up!

Daisym. Soot does not reflect solar radiation – it absorbs it. In your first and fourth paragraph, you tell us that soot reflects solar radiation and in the fifth you tell us that soot absorbs solar radiation. Helloooooo! It’s interesting to note your contribution to the degradation of OLO’s ethical standards and your success in making pig-ignorance, an art form.

Rpg and your: “we are impotent when it comes to climate change and that's what all the shrill alarmists can't deal with .. or to use another word, they deny.”

Excellent piece of trolling rpg! Well at least for those who suffer from a lying disorder. Did you expect readers to believe you've never heard of man's ability to manipulate the weather? Or how man-made pollution affects the climate? Then again perhaps you really are just a poor simple-minded [deleted and poster warend] who's been set-up to spread confusion and deception over climate change?:

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/haarpecologist.pdf

http://www.newswithviews.com/Peterson/rosalind8.htm

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20020926/

Daisym the link above is for your benefit too - hopefully!

What scares me is that if there is a link between co2 and AGW all the sceptics who are knocking that link are in effect saying it is OK continue putting co2 into the atmosphere.

If there is any doubt err on the side of caution and do something.
As all the scientific bodies in the world that have any credibility are saying.
Until they come out and say we were in error then I trust them rather than the few denialists that keep sprouting without any evidence such as the Heartland organisation.

Especially as the last 10 years were the hottest on record.

At least we should be cleaning up our home it is the only one we have.

Protagoras:

Thanks for the interesting links you provided, particularly http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20020926/ . This particular link shows a graph from a climate model with the explanation "Soot Changes Ground Temperatures in Asia: Soot blocks the Sun's energy from reaching the ground and cools the surface..."

Atmospheric soot blocks sunlight and cools the surface. In my earlier comment, I (unfortunately) used the word "refect" when using the word "block" might have been better to convey my meaning, which was that airborne soot cools the surface. Whether cooling occurs because sunlight is reflected or blocked is unimportant to the point I made. Your nit-picking of my choice of these words does not alter the validity of my statement that airborne soot cools the surface. Even so, you leave me no choice but to yield to your demonstrated intellectual superiority. You're much too good for me, sir. After all, I'm nothing more than a "pig-ignorant" commenter, clearly out of league with the likes of you. Enjoy your life.

Protogas there is no need to be rude especially when you are in the wrong! I have already told you THE AUTHOR said the Arctic ice would melt between 5-10 years according to her sources not mine. So go and read what she originally wrote, then what I posted and then try and show some good manners.
Yes yes yes you are saving the whole planet you are practically a God now but frankly I just think your Mum should have given you a few more clips around your ears to teach you a little more humility.

Placing children in charge of the economic china shop is disastrous as the author of this codswallop reveals. When all is lost, the politically correct will simply find another cause and runaway, runaway, It wasn't I, it was somebody else, over there, not me, them! But then placing children in charge does suite the greens and labors agenda.

As I have mentioned in numerous posts, I think predicting the weather has always been a dodgy business. However, I feel an obligation (simply because I'm naturally argumentative) to respond to a couple of posts.
“Climate change is no more dangerous now that it has even been, and we have the same ability to adapt to it as ancient people did.”
Just a few quick figures.
Year 950. world population 250 million.
1804, 1 billion.
1927, 2 billion.
1974, 4 billion.
Sadly, the world's answer to 'adaptation' generally involves large numbers of the population dying. No doubt, some of the posters on this site would suggest we could well afford to 'lose' some of these people -assuming they themselves of course, are not among that number.
It should also be noted that, while the human population has grown from 250 million to 6 billion in just over a thousand years, the world's forests have been decimated. (CO2 isn't actually healthy for people, as one poster suggested; it's much better for trees). In the same period, the world's population of trees has probably declined by about 80%, and the process is ongoing.
Meanwhile, in line with the increase in human population, cattle now number around 1.3 billion.
In fact, in the last few decades, a significant percentage of the worlds forests were cut down to make room for cattle.
It's been pretty well established that forests do affect rainfall patterns. The so called 'Mediterranean' climate pattern is largely a result of ship building, -and the resultant deforestation- thousands of years ago.
So yes, Leigh, I agree; Humanity can adapt. In fact, I doubt the likes of Gates and Buffet, and the various Shahs, sheiks, potentates and billionaires will even notice any significant inconvenience.
And BTW, Peter the B., Your argument about how little one insignificant state matters makes exactly as much sense as the argument against democracy. How can one vote matter? For that matter, why do you continue to give the rest of us the benefit of your opinion?
How can one opinion matter?