Grim,

So, what you are suggesting is that, given current models, and IF NO GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTS ANY COUNTER-POLICY WHATSOEVER, world temperatures will go up by 1.3 degrees by 2113.

So what do you reckon they might rise by, if in the meantime, many governments DO implement various amelioration policies, find alternatives to fossil fuels, find better ways to USE fossil fuels, find ways to extract CO2 from the atmosphere, carbonise soils, plant billions of trees (furniture-timber, etc., not for burning), improve irrigation so that more land is opened up, say in Africa, to production and thereby suck more CO2 out of the atmosphere. Etc., etc.

Yes, if we all sit on our hands, temperatures might rise by as much as 1.3 degrees in a century. The difference between, let's say, 20 and 21.3 degrees, or 30 and 31.3 degrees, or 40 and 41.3 degrees. I've picked apricots in 46 degrees and no, it's no fun. But 1.3 degrees difference, is hardly going to fry us all.

That's IF we sit on our hands. But who is doing that, even now ? SA gets a huge proportion of its electricity from wind power now, in 2013. China will expand renewable energy sources by 1 % every year, from 20 % in 2020. Tree-plantings might do wonders to our North, not to mention providing work forever for Aboriginal people in their communities (that's if they want it, of course).

Yes, global warming is happening, but is it happening at a manageable, sustainable level, at a level which can be even reversed ?

And in reality, there hasn't been global warming for 16 years. So, what do you go by, theory or practice ? If theory doesn't mesh reality, then question your theory. Isn't that sensible ?

Cheers,

Joe

Banjo some times we agree some times not.
To try to look at climate change only from looking at what our politicians say is folly.
Look at the world view.
Labor lost the election, in 2010, not its policy,s but its actions.
In fact bank on it some do not understand what they voted for.
Indeed IF the greens had not contaminated the word conservation, many more would think as I do,
Close observation, mixed with a little understanding will show those with eyes open, greens by their words and actions *damage * true concern for climate and all it involves.
In time we will see a floating price on carbon as Liberal policy.
I never doubted that Turnbull is far from alone on this matter in the Liberal center.

Yes Shadow Minister climate change is occurring, just as it always has done. But every day new research throws more doubt on CO2 being responsible for more than a few percent of it.

The western world has wasted so much on climate research & fool programs like ethanol, bio diesel & alternate power generation that the damage is already greater than anything any or all trace gasses could ever do.

Fortunately the whole sorry episode has almost finished, just the shouting & scapegoating to go.

Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Now that it seems that AGW is either defunct or of little concern we
will still need to develop alternative energy schemes, just not in a
panic as the greens would have had us do it.

The time that we have is not any longer but we can do it in a more
commercial manner. Nuclear energy should be back on the menu and we
will not have to run around shutting down coal mines.

This whole schnozzle should be a lesson to us all not to get in a
panic over 100 year problems.
It is to be hoped that the greenies don't take up as their cause the
coming energy problems or we will have the same enormous waste of money.

Dear Shadow Minister,

There's a hilarious and
revealing collection of Tony Abbott's quotes called,
"Tony Speaks: The wisdom of the Abbott," and among
many other quotes of his there's the one on climate change:
"absolute crap," is cited. You may want to look into it.

Some people and governments see pollution as a
regrettable but inevitable by-product of desired economic
development - "where there's smoke, there's jobs."

I won't go into the chemistry of atmospheric pollution,
which is extremely complex, except to say that control
of pollution is politically difficult, however, for the
economic interests behind "smokestack" industries are
a powerful political lobby.

Mention does need to be made of the fact that
the most far reaching effect of air-pollution, is a change in the
global climate. The facts are - as a result of the
burning of fuels and wastes and the razing of forests, the
amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is steadily increasing.
This gas creates a "greenhouse effect" on the planet, for it
allows solar rays to reach the earth's surface but prevents heat
from radiating back into space. The consequence will be
global warming, which will eventually cause the melting of the
polar ice caps, a rise in sea levels, and changes in weather patterns.

Global temperatures were expected to rise by 3 to 8 degrees
Fahrenheit by 2030.

This may seem like a small change, but
minor fluctuations in global temperatures can have drastic
consequences. During the last ice-age, when much of North
America was covered with sheets of ice more than a mile thick,
average temperature was only about 5 degrees cooler than today.

Even if - IPCC got their figures wrong -
are we prepared to chance the fact
that most of the climatic, agricultural, and ecological
patterns that we're familiar with today would be completely
disrupted, and there's no knowing what the ultimate
consequences would be for life on the planet and for human
society - are we foolish enough to simply tolerate pollution
rather than bear the costs (probably including slower
economic growth) - of limiting it?

As usual, a pinch of half-truth goes a long way. Tell everybody the whole story rather than just the bit that suits your political allegiance, Shallow Minister:

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/09/scientists-take-the-mail-on-sunday-to-task-over-claim-that-warming-is-half-what-ipcc-expected/

"Neither the IPCC in 2007 nor the current crop of climate models ever suggested that the world has been, or should have been, warming at 0.2 degrees per decade since 1951. So the headline should have been "Global warming is just 92 percent of what we said it was", on an apples-for-apples comparison."

"The 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade figure relates to an observed warming over the period 1990-2005 which clearly cannot be compared with the period since 1951".

"So the two figures Rose compares are not measuring the same thing. As the Met Office's Richard Betts tweeted yesterday: "Rose created a headline by misrepresenting [the 2007 IPCC report]."