warmair,

"The difference is that the Co2 level is now way above the natural levels that have existed for over 1/2 a million years."

Well it depnds on your time frame. Go back even further and CO2 is at historic low levels.

" If we keep going on the present path, we will reach a figure of 3 times pre-industrial levels by 2100, which has the potential to raise average global temperatures by 10 deg C or more. "

Now let's see. It took us 150yrs to increase CO2 by less than 50% but you're saying it'll increase by a further 250% in 90 yrs? Its increased by 2.6% in the past 5 yrs indicating a rise by by 2100 of maybe a further 50%.
And this 50% rise so far has resulted in a temp rise of .7 deg C. Even if we assumed a further 250% rise and even if we ignored the diminishing effectiveness of increased CO2 to heat the planet, how does a 50% rise cause a <1C rise but a 250% rise cause a >10C rise.

Ummmm, simple maths v. your scare-mongering? Which to trust?

"a path to a low carbon future has been shown time and again to be possible for something less than 1% of GDP"
I've no intention of getting into an intricate economic argument over this but two things. The 1% number is at the low end of predictions...funny how you take the low end numbers for this but the high end numbers for temp rises. Two, even a 1% cost would devastate the economy costing 1000s of jobs. But it'd be even worse for the developing economies where most of the cost would be borne since they are where most of the new CO2 will come from.

"This claim that global temperatures have not risen over the last 20 years is just plain wrong. "
Well if you're gunna just ignore simple facts that even the IPCC now accept, there's really nothing more to say.

mhaze

"This claim that global temperatures have not risen over the last 20 years is just plain wrong. "
Well if you're gunna just ignore simple facts that even the IPCC now accept, there's really nothing more to say.

Ok supply the link that proves your point I can't find any suport for it anywhere.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-2-2.html#table-3-2

warmair,

I think it's helpful to understand that the "skeptics", all warm and fuzzy, from the Graham Lloyd's Pachauri article (you know the one where he attributed views to Pachauri, but didn't actually quote him on the "17 year "pause")...anyhooo, they've dropped the "Pachauri" bit in the last few days, and have now replaced it with the "IPCC" (makes it sound much more official-like, don't you know)...especially when all most "skeptics" are capable of is mouthing any cliche that suits their cause.

http://skepticalscience.com/australian-pachauri-global-warming.html

Poirot
Thanks for that explanation.
I was wondering how on earth the claim of no warming could possibly be justified. I am amazed how people can be so easily sucked in by the nonsense coming from some the of skeptics. Maybe its time I got a job selling Nigerian investment schemes.
By the way I see that Australia has just had its hottest summer on record. I expect the skeptics will now put all their thermometers inside to keep them out of the heat.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-01/australia-experiences-hottest-summer-on-record/4547746

warmair,

Go here ...http://skepticalscience.com/trend.php

Now there are lots of places you could go to to see temp data but I chose this one since its one of those pro-warmist sites (indeed I think its Poirot's home page since she quotes it so often). If I sent you to some other place you'd simply refuse to beleive the data but I think you're less likely to if it comes from one of your own.

This page offers data and analysis on temp records over the years.

Select "RSS". Select the years 1990 to 2013. Select Calculate. Observe that the programme shows the warming trend and the error range at the 2 sigma level. Observe that the trend is less than the uncertainty and therefore is not significant. This is very important. It means that at the 95% confidence level there is no upward trend.

You can do the same for UAH using 1994 as the start year, Hadcrut3 (1994), Hadcrut4 (1995), GISS(1996) and so on.

This isn't opinion, this is data.

I find it fascinating that the warmists are constantly talking about being pro-science, accepting the data etc but as soon as the data doesn't tell the approved story, they look the other way.

So what? Well many warmists in the past have said that a period exceeding 15yrs of no warming would cause one to doubt the models and therefore the entire theory. eg NOAA "”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.” Phil Jones said something similar. (NOAA's then revised the time frame out to 17yrs to buy a bit more time).

Bottom line...there's been no statistically significant warming for about 2 decades depending on which data set you choose. And no models predicted that and no models have an explanation for it. Therefore the models are faulty.

For a more substantive appraisal:

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/fulltext/