Err Foxy, if the temperature was only 5 deg cooler over Nth America
than it is today, why didn't the ice all melt ?

Wow, sea level rise lapping at the doorsteps of Pacific islanders - from glacial melts, but if not, then from what?
(Heretofore 'hidden' immense deep-layer aquifers 'bursting' out of their 'confinement'? Perhaps, but if so, from what cause - and where is the evidence?)
(And don't try to tell me it's from an increase in global rainfall - it's a 'closed' system, after all. Or has some massive, super-hyper inverse-electrolysis been happening that no-one's been told about, sucking H2 and O2 out of the atmosphere in huge gulps, and thereby not only producing additional H2O (water), but also artificially 'boosting' relative atmospheric CO2 concentration?)

Increasing ocean acidification - from increased dissolved CO2, but if not, then from what?
(Since we know that the 'partial pressure' principle applies, whereby, as ocean temperature rises, there should be less dissolved CO2 - unless the atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 rises 'inordinately' to relatively 'extreme' levels.)

Some poo-poo the deep ocean as a 'heat sink' - but without any evidence for this 'postulation' - whereas there appears to be factual scientific evidence of such a rise in deep ocean temperatures. And, given the mass/volume of water involved, a small rise in temperature would amount to a 'lot' of heat absorbed.

We are in a closed system. Glacial melt means energy absorbed - per latent heat of freezing/melting, but also some via latent heat of condensation/evaporation, as some 'melt' becomes additional water vapour in the atmosphere.
This energy absorption (within our 'closed system') necessarily means some corresponding atmospheric 'cooling' - perhaps accounting for part of any 'lower than expected' (per IPCC 'modelling') global temperature rise.

However, whereas I see macro-evaluation as 'indicative', it appears that IPCC advocates want to go the way of the 'fu-fu bird', whirling in ever-diminishing 'micro' circles, until they 'disappear'?
What next? Dissection of a quark?

SM: >about 500m years ago CO2 levels were about 2000ppm (5x that of today) and life flourished and temperatures were not that different from today.<
But how much land was above water? How acidic the ocean? Species? (Early Man, 4 million years, tops.)

If nothing else the flat earth anti climate changers are entertaining.
Just reading the views they hold, including it seems the whole idia is a greens Labor plot is amusing.
But frightening too.
So very often personal views usually based on politics over rules action on matters so vital.
Maybe the endless debate is meant to keep us mud wrestling while the issues we should address are ignored.

If you've got a problem with your plumbing, talk to a plumber. A problem with Law? Talk to a lawyer.
A problem with climate change?
Cherry pick amongst the various journo's until you find one who agrees with your own perspective.
When a doctor tells you that you have a problem and you need to make some changes, you might want to get a second opinion. You may even look for a third or fourth opinion.
97 out of 100 climate doctors tell us we've got a problem.
But hey, large numbers of politicians and journalists don't accept that, and we know they wouldn't lie to us, would they?
Yep, if I ever get diagnosed with cancer, I'll definitely be talking to my local MP about it.
Now we have a PM who not only thinks AGW is crap, but also thinks (for the first time in 80 odd years) we don't need a minister for science (but we do need one for sport).
Who needs science when God's on your side, right?
I'm sure Runner agrees.

It would appear that the original article to which I referred in the Sunday Mail was incorrect, and has been withdrawn.

It would appear that the change in warming is now 0.12C per decade not 1.3C per decade. It would now appear that temperatures will rise by about 1.1C by 2100, assuming a linear growth.

If the world moves to non emitting technologies such as nuclear and renewables, then this could be less.

Shallow Minister shouldn't blame the Daily Mail for the misrepresentation of IPCC findings. Clearly, from the quote in his opening post, he took his information from his beloved "Australian".

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/we-got-it-wrong-on-warming-says-ipcc/story-e6frg8y6-1226719672318

This is from where SM quoted: "The 2007 assessment report said the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade, but according to Britain's The Daily Mail the draft update report says the true figure since 1951 has been 0.12C.". Yep, that suppository of half-truth, the Daily Mail is relied upon by The Australian which failed to check the IPCC facts for itself.

Then there's "Last week, the IPCC was forced to deny it was locked in crisis talks as reports intensified that scientists were preparing to revise down the speed at which climate change is happening and its likely impact."

Yeah, that ol' favourite, the IPCC was "forced to deny" a confection of crisis, so it must be true! Crikey, imagine if it had said "no comment"!

From the link given in my last post: "The Telegraph quickly repurposed the Mail on Sunday article under the headline, 'Top climate scientists admit global warming forecasts were wrong'. Meanwhile, The Australian went a step further with a story headlined 'We got it wrong on warming, says IPCC'."

Will the Australian now publish "We Got it Wrong on the IPCC"?