Hi Grim,

So you're prepared to agree that temperatures have risen barely an inch in a century, sea-levels by barely an inch in a century, and that average world temperatures have not risen substantially in fifteen years ?

Or are you - horrors ! - a 'denier' ?

Cheers,

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Paul,

As above I have already done so. When it became clear that a particular aspect of the article which I quoted was wrong. However, the jist of the article being primarily that much of the hysterical hyperbole of the greenie groups has been shown to be complete fiction.

As mentioned before, 500m yrs ago CO2 was 2000ppm, and while the temperatures were slightly higher, and the sea levels were higher, life flourished. If we burnt all available fossil fuels we would not reach this level.

Also the elephant in the room is that even if Aus reduces its emissions to zero, without a global agreement, there will be no measurable difference in either CO2, temperatures, or sea levels. Going it alone simply makes more coal / gas available at a cheaper price for those with no carbon tax, such as China, India, most of the USA and Canada, and the entire 3rd world.

So while I clearly understand the link between emissions and climate change, I have heard enough far fetched pseudo science "crap" from environmental groups to firmly place them in the idiot bin. By 2050 with a population of 9bn+ and the growth of India, China etc, the world will be vastly different, and my guess is that climate change will probably not even be the top environmental issue.

"So while I clearly understand the link between emissions and climate change, I have heard enough far fetched pseudo science "crap" from environmental groups to firmly place them in the idiot bin. By 2050 with a population of 9bn+ and the growth of India, China etc, the world will be vastly different, and my guess is that climate change will probably not even be the top environmental issue."

For someone who bangs on at considerable length on these subjects, it turns out you're quite an ignorant little Shadow Minister.

Loudmouth,

"So you're prepared to agree that temperatures have risen barely an inch in a century, sea-levels by barely an inch in a century, and that average world temperatures have not risen substantially in fifteen years ?"

You know next to nothing about this complex subject.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/

"The atmosphere stores only about 2% because of its small heat capacity. The surface (including the continental ice masses) can only absorb heat slowly because it is a poor heat conductor. Thus, heat absorbed by the oceans accounts for almost all of the planet’s radiative imbalance."

@Poirot,

Loudmouth: <<<So you're prepared to agree that temperatures have risen barely an inch in a century...>>
Poirot: <<You know next to nothing about this complex subject...>>

Just answer the question, Poirot.
Surely it's either yes of no!

You have been bagging Tony Abbott for ages about his slipperness.
You'd beat any of the pollies by a country mile

YES or NO?

incidently --on a related issue-- having noted that you are such a big fan of full and open discloure (having noted your lampoon of the govts illegal-boaties reporting stance). When are you going o stand-up and DEMAND Tim Flannery tell us all who is funding his new position?

Hi Poirot,

"You know next to nothing about this complex subject."

Yup, you got that right. All I know is:

* that average world temperatures have risen by less than 1.5 degrees in 120 years,

* that sea-levels have risen around the world by less than two inches in the same time (except for Fiji where, according to a delegate at Copenhagen, mountains are being swamped as we speak), and

* that average world temperatures have not risen significantly in sixteen years.

And yes, also, that trees - massive plantations of them - suck CO2 out of the air. Plants love CO2. So of course, deforestation should cease, or be controlled, while massive RE-forestation projects should be implemented Like across north Australia, for example.

A cat can look at a king, they used to say. An idiot can also point out the obvious. You should try it some time :)

Cheers,

Joe

Don't be such a silly ignorant little Parrot,

Uncritically swallowing the pseudo science from the greens (who generally have no science training whatsoever, as I suspect is your situation) is blatant ignorance.

Most of the actual research papers I have read over the last couple of decades give readings, trends, hypothesis, and defined limits of their implications etc, but certainly no wild extrapolated predictions of the type that green activists love to publish without any consideration of the caveats or limitation that the authors papers put on their conclusions.

I have seen articles showing Australia flooded by 200ft sea level increases, and even in this thread a stupid article from the SMH showing desert superimposed on the outskirts of Sydney. Only a moron would swallow that.