Steele,
Temp data, right or wrong, is not proof of human induced climate change.

You are aware that 1000 years ago cereal crops were grown in Greenland, until it got too cold. So yeah the climate has changed, at least in Greenland. But we are talking about human induced climate change.

Adelaide temps? Your mate K Rudd said a few hot days in Adelaide was proof of climate change just before his entourage left for Copenhagen. That is just crap and typical of the arguments warmists use for proof. Same as the furphy that the oceans will rise to cover 8 storey buildings. Kids in UK will not know what snow is. We will not get enough rain to fill dams, etc. You believe that crap?

Easy to see why the wheels have fallen off climate change debate.

I do trust Tim and Big Al to inform us if and when there is some proof of humans effecting climate change. We can't even make it rain locally, when required, despite our best efforts, yet some think we can alter the wold climate.

Yep, I'll talk when you have some tangible evidence.

Haz, I wrote, regarding AGW:

>> …ultimately, we just don’t know! And therefore we should all be sceptics and be erring on the side of caution. [We] all… should be advocating the same thing – that we should be doing what we can to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and onto renewables.

And we need to realise that quite aside from any climate change consequences that our addiction to fossil fuels might have, that this would be a damn good idea anyway!

In short, the whole AGW debate should be redundant, as we should simply be doing the same things anyway regardless of whether it is real and critically serious or completely bogus. <<

You offered no response.

Well…. surely this is the all-important point. Your vehement AGW denialism should really be totally irrelevant!

You should be just as fully supporting the steady conversion from fossil fuel power to renewable sources just as vehemently as the most rampant ‘warmists’.

Yes?

LUDWIG..<<..You should be just as fully supporting the steady conversion from fossil fuel power to renewable sources just as vehemently as the most rampant ‘warmists’.>>

I WOULD go one further
i would say once you advocate against greenhouse petrO/AND\COAL
you sign up to the tax..or you stop gaining the advantages OF WHAT THEY BRING,..

[LIVE BY THE S/Word
your sword is thy last word..]

IF YOU SAY...ITS A HUGE DANGER
dont be two faced..get off the grid..buy a prios
till then dont be using 10 timES THE COAL I DO..AND LECTRURE ME TO SUBSIDIZE YOUR TWO FACED BLIND BIAS

ITS BAD..iF YOU GET the advantage
but none of the guilt/blame/shame..gee how clever be you?

*Sigh*

Dear Banjo,

Yes, thank you for all that, but in your evident excitement I'm afraid you have failed to address the simple question I put to you; Did Adelaide experience a record number of days over 40 degrees this summer in over 130 years of data?

All I want to do is put a series of very basic questions to you directly around climate data to discover where the disconnect lies. This will require very little effort form your good self.

If this is something you see yourself struggling with then perhaps we can tackle it from a different angle. In that case I would ask you what data set would you need to see before you would be induced to change your mind on human induced global warming?

I am quite happy to venture down either path. Your call.

Luddy old mate, you are at least a warmist worth talking to. Sorry I missed that point.

However I must throw it back to you to explain why we should "wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and onto renewables".

To start with there are no renewables that work, except hydro, & perhaps woodchips replacing coal. The latter is pretty limited if we don't want the whole planet resembling Easter Island.

Wind never works when you need it most, when it is really hot or cold. These conditions are always calm. It also requires huge subsidies, & the life of the things is proving much less than claimed. The economics just don't work.

Solar is just too polluting in it's manufacture, even for me. It doesn't make economic sense, requiring huge subsidies. Longer term users are finding their output rapidly diminishing, much earlier than claimed.

Just like solar, alternative liquid fuels produce more CO2 than petroleum in their manufacture, so why bother?

One of the reasons for the bankruptcy of Spain, was the love affair they had with tidal. They have billions of dollars worth of that experiment sitting in the sand dunes, awaiting the scrap merchants oxy torches.

So now please explain why we should forsake fossil fuels when there is more than enough for 50 years minimum, before it gets expensive. You often suggest this is required, but not why. We have plenty of coal, & as we now know, there is no reason for not burning it. In fact common sense suggests it is imperative we burn it, to increase plant growth.

While we have nothing but models to suggest CO2 can cause us problems, we all know it's boon to plant growth. We also know that it has been at much higher levels in the past, without incinerating all life on the planet.

If we are really serious about life, it becomes almost a requirement to warm up the planet. The greatest land mass is close to the north poll. Every degree warmer opens up more living space for most life. What is wrong with that?

Hey Steele have the US broken 3000 all time cold records this winter?

Yep, I can talk superfluous crap, just like you.