JF Aus,
I applaud your concern for the oceans and share concern for the way we treat our sewerage. We currently "mine the soil" of nutrients, eat the food we grow, and then flush all those nutrients out to sea. Peak minearl phosphorus and potassium are on the way. Experts at Sydney's UTS are saying it will take 20 years to retrofit sewerage systems to capture those nutrients into closed nutrient cycles.

Interestingly Aldous Huxley even understood this back in 1928.

From “Point Counter Point”.

“With your intensive agriculture,” he went on, “you’re simply draining the soil of phosphorus. More than half of one per cent a year. Going clean out of circulation. And then the way you throw away hundreds of thousands of tons of phosphorus pentoxide in your sewage! Pouring it into the sea. And you call that progress. Your modern sewage systems!” His tone was witheringly scornful. “You ought to be putting it back where it came from. On the land.” Lord Edward shook an admonitory finger and frowned. “On the land, I tell you.”

“But all this has nothing to do with me,” progrested Webley.

“Then it ought to,” Lord Edward answered sternly. “That’s the trouble with you politicians. You don’t even think of the important things. Talking about progress and votes and Bolshevism and every year allowing a million tons of phosphorus pentoxide to run away into the sea. It’s idiotic, it’s criminal. it’s … it’s fiddling while Rome is burning.” He saw Webley opening his mouth to speak and made haste to anticipate what he imagined was going to be his objection. “No doubt,” he said, “you think you can make good the loss with phosphate rocks. But what’ll you do when the deposits are exhausted?”

He poked Everard in the shirt front. “What then? Only two hundred years and they’ll be finished. You think we’re being progressive because we’re living on our capital. Phosphates, coal, petroleum, nitre – squander them all. That’s your policy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Counter_Point

So on this we agree. On climate, sadly, not so much.

The Lowy Institute has only 52% seeing GW as a major threat, down from 68% two years ago.

Explodes Now, you of all people should be last to make comments or come acroess all hurt about character attacks or even light comments. After your recent very public exploration of extreme bad temper at anyone disagreeing with you, I'm surprised you are allowed to post at all.

The MWP happened, that effect may happen again, it may not. It's good for you to admit something like that as it now opens up, for you, the potential for other liklyhoods from information, not just from AGW sites which all, like the anti-AGW sites, have agenda not always abuot science but often to gain funding to pay various mortgages and school fees. People, including scientists are human after all.

Graham has a good point, you need to look at the data, not just the conclusions of the writers - the IPCC has a Jack and Jill summary of the reports, and a lot of the writers disagree with their conclusions being "blended" into the mix such that a vanilla, and political, outcome is produced.

Be careful of "heros", is probably a good motto, when someone gains superior status in the science world, even if he is not from that region, Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Bono etc they tend to become morally superior and hypocritical.

So back to Mark's original point, now that we can put the MWP thing aside, scientists today do not know enough about what drives climate, they know some things, yes but not all. Clearly this is true since there is discussion about it, it is not like making horseshoes, a known thing and no longer studied.

Time will tell, and we'll all pay for it in Australia because the science here is being used to justify higher taxes, which may or may not be used to fight "climate change". (I say let the climate change!)

BTW - how will you know if the good fight is being won? If your lifestyle is severely impacted? Will that feel better, is that what this is about, paying penence?

Eclipse Now,

Thank you but my concern is not for the ocean, it is for the people who depend on it for nutrition and trade, especially in places like the neighbouring Solomon Islands where I have long term friends in real trouble.

You have a good understanding of phosphate. I don't agree with the 20 years to retrofit sewage systems, anyway 20 years is less, add infinitum, than it will take for an ETS to solve the problem.

Please tell me is a few words why you think we do not agree on climate.

JF Aus quotes a BBC article quoting Mojib Latif as saying the world is cooling for the next few decades. Those who want to know what point Mojib was ACTUALLY making, before the denialists started sneering all over the blogosphere, should check out his actual speech documented here. (He has an outrageous problem pronouncing 'R's, but we'll forgive him because he is such a well respected climatologist).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khikoh3sJg8&feature=sdig&et=1255382545.77

**ODO** tries to paint me into a corner where I only follow certain select climate alarmist voices in the wilderness. The reality is ODO has joined a paranoid conspiratorial worldview up there with Fox Mulder and the government hiding Aliens at Roswell.

Rather than being a minority view, there is now not a single science academy on the planet that denies global warming.

Consider this: "With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[72]"

A *few* science groups are neutral (such as American Association of Petroleum Geologists, imagine a petroleum association being "neutral"?), but none actually dissent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

On the other hand, these are just *some* of the consenting scientific organisations that agree with global warming, and you’ll find it’s all the world's most prestigious scientific organisations.

Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

**SO MY QUESTION TO ODO**, if I am following the majority consensus of all the science academies on the planet, who on earth are YOU treating as YOUR climate gurus? (No need to reply, the above post already demonstrates what a hypocrite you are.)

Eclipse Now,

In that You Tube video as per you last post, look closely at the satellite image of the ocean. Look closely like a doctor examines an xray.

Do you see the shade of green and the blue of the ocean? Do you see the different shades of green within the green?

To me the green appears to be algae, quite a lot of it too.