SR,

"I'm not sure why you defend this man" The man doesn't need defending. But the truth could use a hand whenever you're around.

"'Is she an Indian or not?' that was never what this was about."

Well don't tell me...tell that Redux fellow who started all this with the claim that she was an Indian. I think we can all agree Mr Redux and logic are strangers but he was sure that EW was an Indian, contra Trump. Perhaps Mr Redux has now changed his mind now that his assertions are shown to be bollocks. But then most of his assertions suffer that fate.

In the US the term "person of color" has a specific meaning being that said person isn't white. EW claimed to be an Indian and therefore a person of color. Her speech was an attempt to walk that back. By way of background she still has hopes of running for president in 2020. But she has no chance even with Democrats with the fauxachontas silliness hanging over her. So she and her advisers are trying to find a way to put it all behind her. Hence the speech.

"The initial impetus for global temperature research was the fact that solar cycles had predicted a cooling planet yet midway through the last century it was instead it was found to be warming. "

That is utterly wrong. Midway through the last century the earth was cooling which was very much in tune with the solar cycles which were the among the weakest this century. That cooling led to the 'consensus' (where have I heard that before?) that we were headed for an extended cooling period.

Utterly wrong old chap.

Re your "Eden Period". I've never heard the term and nor it seems has Mr Google. Some of us use the term Holocene to describe the last 10-12000 years. For 25% of that time temperatures were higher than present, especially during the periods when civilisations flourished eg Roman Warm Period, Minoan Warm Period. So if there is an optimal temperature its probably a little higher than now

Philip S.,

The Paradise Papers did not expose any under-
handed dealings of Prince Charles. Yes, $130,000
was invested by his estate from the Duchy of
Cornwall in a company called "Sustainable Forestry
Management," through a friend that Prince knew
at university. Apparently even the Queen has offshore
accounts and investments. It's quite common to invest.

However everything is above board. It should be noted
that the recorded income of the estate is about 34 million
in 2016-2017 on which the Prince voluntarily pays income
tax.

It should also be noted that the Prince of Wales does not
have any direct involvement in the investment decisions
taken by the Duchy. These are the responsibility of the
Duchy's finance and audit committee.

Anyway, thank you for your feedback. It is useful and
I am disappointed that you have chosen not to
communicate with me in the future.
Hard as it may be, I shall have to try
keep on keepin on'. (smile).

Foxy - Can't wait for your answer to this epic fail.

First you stated Quote
"Do you realise that our possible future King calls
climate change deniers a part of the "headless chooks
brigade?" And that he's totally amazed at those who
are deniers of science. He's spoken at climate change
conferences and has even had a book published on the
subject.

So who's the one with their eyes wide shut?
Not me!"

** Are you aware this is the same Prince Charles who stated. in July 2009 **

The heir to the throne told an audience of industrialists and environmentalists at St James's Palace last night that he had calculated that we have just 96 months left to save the world.

The Prince, who is advised by the leading environmentalists Jonathon Porritt and Tony Juniper, said that even the economist Adam Smith, father of modern capitalism, had been aware of the short-comings of unfettered materialism.

Delivering the annual Richard Dimbleby lecture, Charles said that without "coherent financial incentives and disincentives" we have just 96 months to avert "irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it."

Are you really that naive, if a person has money in an offshore account they would want to know exactly where it was invested.

If they did not know where it was invested after a time the administrator could just say sorry abc company just went bust all of your money is gone, then put the money in his pocket.

Clearly a conflict of intrests,

Foxy,

Thanks for the summary of Hundloe's book. But its entirely beside the point. Just because one scientist was persecuted while being correct for his theories that aren't immediately accepted doesn't mean that every theory that isn't immediately accepted is correct. Do a quick study on Eugenics.

Now you, like many others who just accept the headlines, have absorbed the notion that almost all science and science organisations are on board with the notion that we are in dire straits.

but that is false.

The CSIRO and the BOM have a joint venture that makes it possible to see what they call 'Climate Futures'.

http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/climate-projections/explore-data/about-data/

Using that tool we can see that most of their models using RCP2.6 predict that the temperatures in 2080 will be only slightly or moderately warmer than the base year. But 4% of their models predict somewhat higher temperatures.

And this is how the world works these days. Its these higher unrepresentative predictions that get all the publicity and which lead the Foxy's of the world to think that there is a consensus of doom. But in years to come, when/if the dire predictions fail to materialise, these groups will point to the low predictions as proof that they were always right.

Its a pattern that has been often followed. When James Hanson made his predictions that kicked the whole thing off, he offered three possibilities. But only the most dire was conveyed to the Foxy's of the world and they bought it. But when the time came to test his predictions and it was found that the least scary was the most accurate, Hanson claimed to have always been right.

Gore did something similar with his Arctic Ice predictions.

_

Foxy, Belly, SR and others all claim to be following the science. Here's just one of hundreds of papers I could mention which dispute the consensus ....

Smirnov, 2018 : "The contribution to the global temperature change due to anthropogenic injection of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, i.e. resulted from combustion of fossil fuels, is approximately 0.02 K now." http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6463/aabac6/meta

(FYG .02K is approx 0.02 celsius)

This and many other papers are saying there is barely any discernible affect on temperatures from CO2.

Do you accept the science? If not why not? And on what basis do you describe people who do accept this science as 'deniers'?

Toni and I'm many others are of the view that since CO2 is a GHG and that its level has been rising and that temperatures have been rising, then the discussion is over. But that totally misses the issue. Apart from issues such as the fact that temperatures also fell while CO2 levels rose, the more important questions are how much more warming might occur and whether that warming will be beneficial (as it has been to date).

One final thing that I find fun to contemplate...what if oil is a renewable?

http://mragheb.com/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%20Engineering/Biogenic%20and%20Abiogenic%20Petroleum.pdf

Philip S.,

Regarding Prince Charles?

It was not a "conflict of interest."

The following link explains:

http://www.itv.com/news/2017-11-07/the-paradise-papers-was-there-a-conflict-of-interest-in-prince-charles-investments/

mhaze,

I object to your reference of "the Foxy's of this world."
There is only one Foxy and she's unique.

Now back to the topic...

Here is a link by the CSIRO giving climate change information:

http://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/Oceans-and-climate/Climate-change-information

And you may find this helpful:

http://www.csiro.au/en/Research/OandA/Areas/assessing-our-climate/Climate-change-science-and-solutions

As for oil being a renewable?

It's the time involved in the process that has
kept it from being considered a renewable.