runner,

>no Aidan just not stupid enough to deny the tremendous improvements in life that
>reliable cheap electricity has done for this nation for over 100 years
Nor am I, and AFAIK nor is anyone on my side. I for one would like us to have reliable cheap electricity in the future - but I don't ignore the evidence about what sources are now cheapest.

>and the total lack of evidence of any effect on weather or climate.
There's very strong evidence of warming globally, irrefutable evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and the atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen by a third as a result of fossil fuel consumption. What more evidence do you need?

>Also you don't need to many brains to see that the predictions from the scaremongers
>over the last 40 years (using pseudo science) has failed miserably.
Never mind about what the scaremongers were saying; why don't you look at the predictions of actual scientists?

>'The literalist biblical view' as you call it says '(Gen 8:22) While the earth remaineth, seedtime
>and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease.'
And none of the predictions from the scientists (nor even those of the scaremongers) contradicted that!

>This view is far more observable and sensible than your mad green marxist religion.
My religion is Christianity. You might think it mad, but there's no divine call to degrade the environment. And nor am I a marxist. Which indicates you have a bit of pronoun trouble when you say:
>IN short you are clueless.

How about looking at GW from another point ?. More available freshwater, more land available for agriculture, less coal needed for heating, more waterfront properties etc.
Hanger-on Scientists will need to find new excuse arguments to continue their "careers".

Individual,
What other point are you referring to? Extreme optimism? It may have escaped your attention, but the world doesn't work like that.

GW will not bring more AVAILABLE fresh water. It will bring more fresh water in total, but not in a useful way (look at Townsville if you want to know the difference).

GW will not make more land available for agriculture. It will have the opposite effect as some places will be too hot to farm effectively, and others will be flooded by rising sea levels.

What good is using less energy for heating if we're using more for cooling?
And how do you think it would create more waterfront properties?

Aidan,
Imagine Siberia & Greenland reverting back to the ice-free stage they were at millennia ago ?
Heaps of room for more breeding of useless humans.
Townsville isn't a natural disaster, it is man-or should I say bureaucrat-made by letting or forcing people to build on flood plains.

Indy has a point.
I look at the bigger picture.
I find that localised data and events, are just that, and not a true test for the whole world.
Even though readings have been taken from the same locations for many years, I note that the recording equipment is changed or updated periodically with new and more current technology and equipment.
In the past we find that even though the new equipment is more refined and can read much finer numbers than it's predecessor, in doing so has given a different level of readings, and therefore could not be relied upon as a progressive and continuous true and accurate graph or set of numbers.
It's possible that the variance was minimal, but there is never-the-less a variance.
It is no different than if a machine is serviced, in doing so adjustments may have to be made, more than likely small ones, but they high-light the fact that the machine was recording in-accurately.
This applies even to breath-a-liser machines the police use.
Constant and continuous readings are essential in any monitoring, for the final analysis to be considered valid and un-contaminated.

A point, or possibly a question I was hoping someone else would ask, is;
If GW or CC, whatever it is called today, is so serious, then why is it the largest countries (by population) in the world are 'gearing up' for the production of 'old' technology power generators,using fossil fuels, such as coal, and not renewables?
The question beckons a rethink.
Is it possible that this whole thing is a ruse to extract money from the system?
Those behind, and who control the POTUS, obviously have an agenda which is not in sync with those countries who are not allies.
No-one can give a clear pragmatic and scientific explanation to this very serious and compelling question.
I for one have laughed off the efforts of some in this inane folly when I see more than two billion people out of six odd, snubbing who?
Themselves?
Why would they want to commit suicide or genocide?
C'mon guys?
Really?
I certainly don't have the answers, but still as before, just more questions.
One has to admit this simple, yet, serious fact is too contentious to simply gloss over, so if anyone has an objective, (not subjective) and pragmatic answer to this conundrum,I would be most interested to hear it.