Dear SPQR,

You wrote; “Because (my dear fellow) the AGW proposition is that CO2 is DRIVING warming.
If CO2 is NOT driving warming (but is a consequence of warming) the whole AGW hypothesis is null and void.”

Because your posts are becoming a notably less charged I'm pleased to be able to respond in kind.

Basically the planet should be or rather is in a Milankovitch Cycle cooling phase. While the science is not definitive there is good evidence the Milankovitch Cycles are responsible for our shifts in and out of ice ages. In purely cyclical terms we are currently coming out of a relatively warm period of recent climatic conditions. In fact throughout most of geological history the global temperature has been on average considerably cooler than it is at the moment. Where CO2, and water vapour freed from ice, have had an impact is they are thought to accelerate the march out of ice ages and slow our descent into them. This is supported by the Vostok ice core sampling.

So up until now CO2 concentrations have been a responder to warming rather than the direct driver although they obviously are responsible for for pushing temperatures higher than they otherwise might have been.

But humans have been a game changer and look like doubling the CO2 concentrations to levels the globe hasn't experienced in many hundred of thousands if not millions of years. We have uncoupled them from the normal cycles and the normal limiting factor of land mass available which is capable of supporting biomass for CO2 production. Not only that we are doing it in a relative blink of an eye allowing little time for species to adapt or shift to survive the predicted resultant temperature change.

Cont...

Cont...

Hell, even I'm selfish enough and care enough about my species to be happy with the temperature where it is and if the use of fossil fuels plus land use changes has meant we are putting off heading into another ice age I can live with that. But we have gone way past a holding pattern here. It is so far into uncharted territory the only thing we really have to tell us about the implications is the physics of the extra CO2 we have added to the atmosphere, and it is not a favourable tale.

I know many of the mitigating factors that have been forwarded as reasons why things will not escalate if we maintain business as usual but none of them have withstood scrutiny. That is why I have been interested in hearing others.

But to completely reject AGW is just idiotic, and to consider there is no threat to human and other species is pretty much the same.

As Lovelock points out we are unfortunately doing this at the wrong end of the cycle.

Dear Luciferase,

You shouldn't ever be ashamed of being a Democrat, they were some really good hearted folk. I joined because they were small business friendly with a good social conscience outlook. Left in the end when they started accepting corporate funds but thoroughly enjoyed my time with them. That was back when they were rightly considered middle of the road, between the Libs and Labour. It seemed without ever changing my politics Labour's shift to the right had me and the party suddenly marooned on the relative left. There was a bit in the latest budget that showed they might be on the road back but they have a long way to go.

Hi Austin.

Its quite obvious you didnt read between the line lines. The insults was To Esteel was from another post...she knows what Iam talking about:) hence the non compliance.

"WikiLeaks has published the Church of Scientology, climate research, the contents of a Sarah Palin,
And you did see "climate research" as one of the sensitive leaked documents?

I also said... "Your right to an extent of which the sky for sure isn't falling, however the planet is under siege" I guess you didnt see that one either:)

The examples I could fill this thread.....well, we don't want to panic the the little people now do we. While the process will stabilize at the currant rate, you and I and our children's children, will be long gone.....thus giving ample time to get the deniers heads out of their bums....of course the planet or mother nature as its called, will decide our fate and the speed that it happens.

Basically the human race is playing russian roulette with the future of mankind, I for one do not gamble, especially when all life on earth depends on what we humans do as the top species.

We have the call to ignore the obvious or take a chance!

What would you do Austin Powers?

And just too finish off, not one of the posters gave an alternative reason to why all those 100 of millions of trees have died and an answer why this has never been seen or recorded before. I also said that the deserts all over the world are growing even faster and there's evidence also to support that as well.

Your next question was "how many more worldwide do not believe the myth of man-made climate change?'

The answer I gave was, The US Government or any institution that has whistle-blowers, don't want to panic the general public, not to mention who employs them.

c

@Plant

<<Basically the human race is playing russian roulette with the future of mankind, I for one do not gamble, especially when all life on earth depends on what we humans do as the top species>>

The only ones I see playing Russian Roulette are the warmists who want to sign us up to one-sided conventions and world parliaments (the Labor Party founding fathers must be rolling in their graves!)

PS Here’s another take on your dying trees:

“Neil Murdoch says there's a natural parasite that keeps the larvae in check.
But the trees are so stressed from the drought that the weevils have exploded in number.”
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2008/s2538128.htm

@Jay,
Not sure about CSteele’s sex. For some strange reason I’ve always thought of him/her as a man
S/he is certainly aggressive & crafty enough to be a man.

The one positive thing that's come to light on the GW subject is that it's exposed how much stupidity is actually out there amongst the educated.

@Csteele,

<<Because your posts are becoming a notably less charged I'm pleased to be able to respond in kind.>>
Now I’m disappointed. I thought I was always charged up –I’ll have to follow Plant’s lead and have some Coco Pops.
(And it confirms my suspicion that you hadn't bothered to read --let alone digest-- most of the points I made in my earlier posts!)

<<Basically the planet should be or rather is in a Milankovitch Cycle cooling phase.>>
I think you are doing a lot of guessing CSteele ,and even many of the warmist f(r)iends wouldn’t follow your line.

There is an old adage: a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
In your case we might edit it to: a infinitesimal amount of knowledge can be a dangerous thing

Here’s a little something I came across in my reading only yesterday and it has great relevance for you and your fellow believers

“ Financial investment firms had developed such complex ways of investing their clients' money that they came to rely on arcane formulas to judge the risks they were taking on.Yet we learned so painfully three years ago, those formulas , OR MODELS, ARE ONLY A PALE REFLECTION OF THE REAL WORLD, and sometimes they can be woefully misleading . The financial world is not alone, of course in depending on mathematic models in many fields—including climate science, coastal erosion and nuclear safety—in which the phenomena they describe are very complex , or information is hard to come by, or, as is the case with financial models , both, but in no area of human activity is so much faith placed in such flimsy science as finance ” [Scientific American, Nov 2011 ,P 59]

The only correction needed is that climate science is far more complex than anything finance has to offer. And its stakes are a lot higher

The really, really, really scary part is people like you are prepared to vote away the future of the country on the basis of such models.