The book, the best seller one of you will write.
Lets name it, the silly things people said about the planets future.
Sorry Man of The Land, you will not get a mention, make far too much sense with your comments.
Hasbeen however is in it the full chapter.
We can do things better, any and every thing, plant more trees, use dead land no good for farming pump treated sewage to it recycle, and grow usable timber.
One thing I am certain of, if we are not in part responsible we will be, if we let population growth continue.

Bazz,

since you linked to the "skeptics" fav blog, here's an example of my earlier point...go the skeptic blog sites!

Before Muller's BEST findings:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/06/briggs-on-berkeleys-best-plus-my-thoughts-from-my-visit-there/

After Muller's BEST findings:

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/07/muller-the-pretend-skeptic-makes-three-claims-hes-half-right-on-one/

Change in temperature approximates sensitivity times the forcing.

If you change [CO2] by 10%, the temperature change is about 0.3 degrees C.

Therefore, sensitivity = 0.3/(5.35 x log(1.1))

If you double [CO2], the temperature change is: 0.3/(5.35 x log(1.1)) * 5.35 x log(2)

That is: 0.3 x log(2)/log(1.1) = 2.2 deg C.

It is clear that some people don’t understand the maths, or the physics.

A product of a dumbed-down society.

Bazz?
The Earth's atmosphere is not saturated with CO2, your interpretation and understanding of planetary climate is off the planet.

No Quanda, I did not mean that the atmosphere was saturated with CO2
or otherwise we would all be dead.
I meant that the co2 effect on temperature had saturated.
A significant difference I think you will agree.
I have been looking at your calculation, where is the figure 5.35 derived ?

Poriot, I think you might have missed my point.
I was not discussing the temperature measurements.
The articles to which you linked were about temperature measurements.
What I was discussing was the effect of co2 changes which the NOAA
says is about two parts per million per year.

So we can apply to Qanda's calculation a 2 in 390 parts per million.
The percent increase per year is 0.512% of co2.
Now where did I put my calculator.

A bit of a hissy fit Paul?

The 1865 red flag act was while the liberals were in power, but is typical of the anti progress / industrial action of the greens, and so the analogy with you is 100%

As LR was a member of the communist party, and took several decades before acknowledging that Stalin's killing of 20m of his own people was not a good thing.

As for your pre selection process is this what you were talking about?

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/05/30/life-after-bob-greens-cleavage-exposed-by-nsw-preselections/

Any Greens candidate needs to be endorsed by one of the Aliens Bob Brown has been chatting to.

P.S. you never commented on the hiding you got in the ACT.