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?