It is clear that the UN doesn't really take CO2 and climate change seriously and have simply developed a scheme to fleece the West to fund Chinese and developing nations to 'catch up' to western standard of living and shift the economic power base to totalitarian China. Its the result of Marxists ideologues having had too much power in the UN.

The climate cannot tell the difference between Chinese CO2 and Indian CO2 and American CO2 so allowing some nations to continue to emit at an astounding rate while limiting others can only be part of the economic levelling out process as the CO2 levels are still going to rise significantly.

So Australia, which emits about 1.2% of the world CO2 will be taxed heavily while China which emits 20%+ of the worlds CO2 can keep emitting freely. CO2 per capita is not the issue as its the total amount that matters to the atmosphere.

So, the atmosphere can apparently handle CO2 if its Chinese or Indian.

'Animal Farm' here we come.

It's not only the content of Viscount Monckton's diatribes about global warming that make me pleased that he is seen as a leading spokesman for the denialist position, it's the quality of the supportive comments that he attracts.

Like I said, I can't wait see him on Lateline.

A modern hi-tech air-conditioner allows the user to set the desired room temperature to within 1 degree C. It does not always get it right!

The climate change fanatics now believe that they can control global temperature to within 0.5 degree C. It is as if Al Gore and the IPCC have a dash-board with magic key-pads allowing them to input ‘Desired Global Temperature’, ‘Desired increase/decrease in sea-levels’!!

Does anyone detect a serious case of megalomania creeping in?

Most of the hot air that was spent at Copenhagen was precisely about this_ whether global temperature should be allowed to increase by 2 degrees or by 1.5 degrees C!!

Of course, the reason they get away with such claims is that the details are fudged, which is exactly what happened with the ‘hockey-stick’ and other projections.

How long will it take for the temperature to get to the desired level? One, two, three hundred or maybe a thousand years?

Just as they conveniently switched from 'global warming' to 'climate change', they will now conveniently forget their own prediction of 'global catastrophe by 2015 if binding reductions were not agreed to at Copenhagen'!

And of course, if global warming does materialize realistically, then places like Siberia, Alaska, the Yukon and North West Territories of Canada, Greenland and other places would become habitable and stand to benefit. The Prime Minister of Greenland was on BBC recently proclaiming that they were looking forward “to a great future”!!

Unfortunately there will also be losers, probably including Australia.

But, make no mistake about it_ those magic key-pads do not exist! We can only adapt as best we can.

bigmal

Some very sensible suggestions there old son of which most only need to be tweaked.

______

Arjay

It's easy to conflate so many issues so that it then becomes a tangled web. CO2 can act as both a positive, and a negative forcing. In terms of your other molecules, try looking at their radiative or heat absorbing capacities.

______

LATO

You have to differentiate between global and regional averages. Some regions will be much worse off than others e.g. Antarctica might get 10 degrees C warmer, but will still be below zero; some Australian regions are already topping the 2 degrees C on averages; others less so.

True, there will be some benefits. However, in the long term the costs outweigh the benefits.

Ha, CJ, you wish, he can go represent the deniers if they need representation.

The skeptics out there will go on without need for heros or high priests and the AGW believers go on needing their tomes and structural hierarchy, IPCC, along with their precious "tweaked" graphs and holy hockey stick.

Lord Monckton represents himself, we watch amused at the gnashing of teeth from believers, the cries of "heresy" the digging up of articles so obscure it must take a lot of gleaning from the internet.

Demands he "MUST" defend himself against all and any scurrilous claims from bilious articles such as "The 14 Most Heinous Climate Villains". Look, anyone who reads and believes such stuff has got to be away with the extreme fairies. Most people see articles like this poisonous bile as extreme, and expected from the religious fanatics describing their mortal enemies, but now we see it from the extreme AGW believers, what does that indicate?

Someone is going to have a wonderful time in 100 years studying this period of mass AGW believer delusion.

Lord Monckton has done nothing but flush out yet more debate. He doesn't even care about all the insults and slurs.

He has brought his own opinions to Australia, you can ignore it, but you all amplify it in your haste to pour scorn. I don't subscribe to all he says, but it's fun to watch the outrage that someone could have such a POV and be popular!

It's just not fair is it, that he gets media coverage and a slot on Lateline you say CJ, excellent, the more exposure the better.

I must admit I'm also skeptical about the objectivity of the comperes on the ABC, but everyone knows they are biased and accepts it will be the same sort of attack as if he was from the federal opposition.

If it is all false and rubbish, why worry? I'm surprised any of you felt the need to post, or even read this article.

This post has become a comedy. Arjay declares: “With just this short exchange, we can see how (the) ordinary punter is totally confused.” “We?” Well please do not speak on my behalf Arjay since it was you who asked the question which is a clear indication that it is you who’s confused.

Speaking for myself, I believe that your repetitive “egg or the chicken” question on warming has been done to death and has become so passé. Why ask we “ordinary punters” when you can obtain an answer from a climate expert?

Molecules indeed Arjay! The global warming potential depends on both the efficiency of the molecule as a greenhouse gas and its atmospheric lifetime. As an “ordinary punter”, I can understand that. In addition I can grasp the concept that, on a molecule-for-molecule basis, methane is about eight times stronger a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide but is present in much smaller concentrations so that its total contribution is smaller. The radiative forcing for CO2 is 1.46 W/m2 and methane is 0.48 W/m2 so that’s good enough for me too.

Furthermore, we plebs can also understand that emissions of carbon dioxide have risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to some 35 billion tons a year now.

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year. Astonishingly, human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes - the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea!

These inconvenient truths have little impact on the combined conscience of the troglodytes and the shills in the fossil fuel industry and pathetically, their major mouthpieces are old, selfish, ignorant and shortsighted - hilarious!

Now does anyone know of the whereabouts of the elusive Mr Monckton?