Loudmouth,

"I respectfully suggest you find the courage somewhere to answer these questions, or stay in the sand-pit."

You laughably behave as if your two ridiculously simplistic questions are of monumental moment.

Why would I bother with them?

I can't think of any reason.

If you're that interested, do some research - or better still, wait for AR5 and do it then.

Of course, I know you're not really interested. You think your questions are somehow show stoppers.

They aren't.

Lol!

Hi Poirot, sweetie,

Yes/ no ? After all, they do make all the difference between BS and what is doable.

Cheers :)

Joe

"Hi Poirot, sweetie,"

That kind of sums you up, doesn't it Loudmouth.

Simplistic questions.....and a resort to sexist patronising BS.

You must get awfully frustrated when you debate the fellas around here.

Not being able to deploy that one.

Pathetic.

(But amusing)

OK Loudmouth, I'll play your silly game.
But since it is your game, I bags you go first.
It's all about balance, isn't it? CO2 in, CO2 out... yes or no?
Was the ecosystem “in balance” (no “anthropomorphic interference) 10,000 years ago? Yes or No.
Human population 1,000,000.
Today, more than 7,000,000,000.
10,000 BPA forests covered more than 50% of land area.
Today 25%.
10,000 BPA Human carbon pollution; effectively zero.
Today, 7,000,000,000 tonnes.
Still in balance? Yes or no.
9 out of 10 hottest years in recorded history occurred this century; 10 out of 10 in the last 17 years.
Coincidence? Yes or No.
Describing people who get their science news from credible, peer reviewed journals as “running around in circles” and “hysterical” while people who get their science news from tabloid newsrags as “sensible” and “reasoned” shows egregious bias, yes or no?
Every city on the planet has significant, measurable smog levels, yes or no.
Most of that smog comes from transport vehicles, yes or no.
and yet, just the 16 largest container ships create more atmospheric pollution than all the vehicles on the road, yes or no.
Oceans are becoming measurably more acidic, yes or no.
Ocean flora, (eg. algae) sequester more CO2 than all the (diminishing) forests in the world, yes or no.
Ocean flora is being adversely affected by rising acidification, yes or no.
If your doctor suggested your lifestyle was seriously threatening your health, and this bothered you enough to ask for a second opinion, then 98 more opinions, and 97 out of the hundred doctors you consulted agreed with the first one, would you prefer the analysis of the 3 contrarians (who were, incidentally, all in the pay of the very people causing your health problems), yes or no?

Between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels rose 195 mm (7.7 in)
From 1950 to 2009, measurements show an average annual rise in sea level of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year, with satellite data showing a rise of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year from 1993 to 2009, an accelerated rate.
Please show us some evidence that continuing to do “like our Daddy done, and his daddy before him” is a clever strategy.

Thank you, Grim. I'm a bit sceptical about that seven-inch sea-level rise the IPCC talks about - I live half a mile from the beach and I haven't noticed any sea-level rise in fifty years, it looks pretty much the same since I slept on it back in 1963. Yes,

I can understand that the rebound from Ice Age glaciation may explain why there has been no sea-level rise in Sydney Harbor, but Adelaide ?

And you touch on exactly what I have been going on about bla bla bla ad nauseam: re-forestation - and it raises the question in my mind: can re-forestation [and of course, stopping any further de-forestation, that goes without saying] counteract the production of CO2 emissions ?

Yes, nasty humans, capitalist economic activity, have caused something, smog, etc., but has it been catastrophic, and can nothing be done about it ?

I sleep soundly. I wish I could join the herd, it's lonely out here, but there you go, that's life.

Joe