Robert, yes you are right, the Brit Met Office did deny the Daily Mail
report. Tracking through it all led me to a number of articles and
this one pointed out that the Met office itself cherry picked its denial.

http://www.thegwpf.org/the-mail-on-sunday-and-the-met-office/

I also found much else about the current temperature trends.
I have seen, at other times indications that CO2 being exponential at
its current level even doubling it will have no further warming effect.
The only graph I have seen on this point showed that it had rolled
over so far that it had flat lined and needed 10,000s of ppm to cause
1 deg C rise.

Additionally Prof Aleklett has shown that the computer models that the
IPCC use are using incorrect data for the amount of fossil fuels that
are available to be burnt.

I am still to go and look for the Argos data.
I had a quick look but all I found was that Brit met Office used
figures for the Artic which showed a rise but did not use the
antartic data which showed a fall.

I think that shows what a mess is the whole thing.

Hi Robert,

Correct me if I'm wrong please, but isn't Australia's natural fertility rate below replacement rate ? That without immigration, our population would either be static or falling ?

I hope somebody knows :)

Joe

Yes, loudmouth I have seen that reported also.
It has risen to about 1.8 babies per woman.
That figure is for all here at that time so includes recent immigrants.
The previous figure I think was about 1.6.
Ludwig probably has better figures, but the stats dept should have it.

Belly asked whether climate change is good or bad for the planet. The planet will continue to exist regardless of climate change. It may be boiling hot or a lifeless world, but it will continue to exist. Climate change affects humans, but our existence is not necessary for the continued existence of the planet. Belly, what do you mean by the question? How do you define what is good or bad for the planet?

Belly,
I saw your questions in your first post but did not bother to reply because, for the believers, it is a religion and no amount of reason or common sence will change religous conviction.

"Is it real" yes of course climate has been changing since earth was first formed.

"Is man playing a role" Best question! No proof yet despite millions spent on research. Read that no warming for 18 years despite record amounts of CO2 being released. This throws doubt on CO2 being responsible for warming.

"Can we do anything about it" Nah, Mother nature will do as she pleases, all in her own time. One must accept there are many things we humans do not have an influence on, tides and earthquakes are a couple of examples.

"Is it good or bad" Depends, an Ice age would certainly be bad, so would and extreme heat period, but a slight warming may open up more farmland in northern hemisphere. History shows previous warm periods enabled crops to be grown in Greenland, for example.

None of the predictions from warmists have come to pass. Massive sea levels rising, contiueing droughts, Uk being devoid of snow. Then the evidence that scientists have been fiddling the data.

I notice tha both you and the Greens have altered your previous stand as you both now simply refer to climate change and no longer call it human induced or AGW. Possibly preparing for a way out and backing away from earlier views?

The more time that expires the more doubt is revealed about the global warming theory. We have been taken for a ride. Bet somewhere there will be record snows or cold soon and does that mean we are entering a new ice age, I doubt it.

Paul,

As a green you don't disappoint. As an arch anti rationalist, you believe that because it can be done, it should be done, and bugger the consequences. Your sense of righteousness is such that only your objectives count, and the rest of the country must be prepared to sacrifice what is important to them for what you deem to be the common good.

I do believe in infrastructure, and am not one of the greens intent on blocking any new development. I do believe in addressing climate change, but the most rational approach (nuclear) power seems to set the greens howling.

As a power systems engineer, the technical reasons for the failings of the renewable power supplies are glaringly apparent, but the greens claim that this is purely negative and that (substitute unproven technology here) will rescue the world.

The reality is that Hot rocks does not work yet, and probably never will in Australia.
CCS is the same,
Solar can be made partially successful but at several times the cost of nuclear.
Wind, the most successful yet, is still notoriously unreliable, and still more expensive than nuclear.

So will the greens support zero emission nuclear or will you continue simply being negative?