Toni,

" I don't think you have sufficient evidence to back up your hypothesis. "

That's true. But then again there's insufficient evidence to back up the alternate hypothesis. The whole thing remains a highly speculative area. What is not speculative is that we have plenty of time before needing to panic. The world has warmed around 0.7c degrees since 1850 and even the most alarmist of the alarmists don't see a problem before we get to 1.5c and most talk about 2c of even 4c.
(2c used to be the benchmark but as it became increasingly unlikely that that was going to happen this side of the next century, the 1.5c benchmark was invented to maintain the alarm. There's no science behind that number).

I understand the argument that we can't take even a small chance and must sacrifice progress in order to obviate even a small risk of CAGW. That type of argument is probably persuasive if you're living in a first world city with benefits that entails and where the costs of the sacrifice are minor and manageable - maybe higher power costs, maybe using the air-conditioner a little less, perhaps higher petrol costs. But even then, those who are all gung-ho for the sacrifice object when it hits them. I found it fascinating that Rudd, who called AGW the greatest challenge of our time, worked assiduously to reduce petrol prices to garner votes when he should have been working to increase prices and celebrating the reduced use of petrol.

/cont

/cont

So supporting and advocating for the sacrifice is easy for some. But I wonder how it looks to those who are actually paying the costs. Its all very well to sit in Melbourne and cheer for the closure of Adani, but I wonder how those who are told they have to remain unemployed and have no future where they live, feel. I wonder if they might think that paying the costs on the as yet quantified chance things might turn bad in 50yrs, is worth it.

Or I wonder if someone living in some sh!thole country, being told that, sorry you can't have a first world life-style because we've gotta save the planet, feel. I wonder if they might think its best to wait for a generation or two before pulling the rug out from under them thus giving them a chance to have a first world life-style and the luxury of sacrificing progress for the warm inner-glow of averting a potentially non-existent problem.

//Would you we be willing to wager a large sum of cash on a game of chance with indeterminate odds?//

So that's a yes then?

Toni,

No I wouldn't...I'd prefer to wait until the odds were somewhat less indeterminate.

But clearly you would bet...so long as you're betting with someone else's money.

So no compassion for those that'll actually bear the costs of your precautionary zeal ?

Dear mhaze,

You wrote;

“At no time have I ever said global warming is not occurring.”

But you had also written;

“How do we know man-made Global Warming exists? Because a consensus of those most involved in the issue (climate scientists) believe it exists. How do we know God exists? Because a consensus of those most involved in the issue believe it exists.”

Could you please tell the rest of us when your 'Road to Damascus' moment occurred.

Hear Ye, Hear Ye, Some CO2 info:
Some many posts ago, I listed scientists who in the 1800s compiled the basic underpinning CC science: atmosphere must have a blanket or world temps would be -16C to -20C on average, found infrared radiation, found CO2 is a greenhouse gas, etc.

But, you need to know more!
Do you know what snow is? Crystals of ice plus air filling the spaces. A layer of snow falls in the Antarctic. I stays put, and next winter, another layer forms, and so on. At Vostok in the Antarctic, the frozen snow and compressed snow is 3km deep. The Russians retrieved a core of compressed ice 3km long. It contains over 800,000 years of snow, and each piece of snow provides temperature data (a proxy) and CO2 concentration. Plotting this data shows a number of ice ages, showing cooling periods, and warming periods. You may not know, but the lowest concentration of CO2 during peak glaciation was never below about 160ppm and during
warm periods, CO2 concentration never exceeded about 280ppm. Our lifestyle over past decades has raised the world’s blanket to CO2 during warm periods to 410ppm, and still rising. We have no way of decreasing CO2 levels. Scientists calculated that some increase is possibly ok, but that we should not exceed 350 ppm. We have! A very new technical paper authored by over 20 scientists is out for review. The world has agreed to not go above a 2C rise. But the unexpected magnitude of extreme events, loss of water, heatwaves and more is causing the IPCC to almost demand that we do not exceed 1.5C. Unfortunately we may exceed 1.5 within the next few years.