I did not deliberately chop anything out. I was just concerned about post length. Read the whole report rather than just the paragraph you deliberately chopped out, PJB. 

During the Cretaceous period when vast marine carbonate beds were deposited carbon dioxide levels were far higher than anything projected in connection with anthropogenic emissions.

So, 100 million years ago, when the continents were still joined together and mammals were first emerging? You have no qualms about modifying conditions on earth in a way that hasn't been seen in that long, at a time when we are also initiating a mass extinction event?

pjb05 wrote on Sep 5^th, 2008 at 4:25pm:


I doubt it. Dr Walter Starck keeps some unusual company, including  certain rocket scientists and retired JCU geologists.

Mate, you're dead in the water with this debate.  Nobody could seriously think that the paragraph you posted was an accurate synopsis of the article I linked to on the previous page.

The final two paragraphs say it all. 

You seriously need to get out more and start to broaden your horizons beyond the denialist sites.

I have read them all and found nothing of substance. All I ask is that you read both the denialist article and the point by point dissection that you'll find on sites like Real Climate.

It makes sense to read both points of view and then decide for yourself which one makes sense. You don't have to tell anyone else. Just be honest with yourself. If you have a half decent BS detector, you'll discover very quickly that something is very rotten in the state of Denmark in the case of Bjorn Lomborg, Bob Carter, Dave Evans and friends.

I've already knocked down a few of your posts in flames, but still you reappear from the ashes. What can I say? I refuse to use silver bullets because I'm a pacifist at heart, and a crucifix is against my more secular nature.

Ah yes your ability to FACTUALLY refute is once more proven.

There is no definitive proof, scientific or otherwise that anthropogenic emissions are causing the earth's climate to change.

caught out in a lie and not liking it fd.

You claim all the time you just have your strance due to "risk mamagement'  Yet you make bald statements like this...  "we are also initiating a mass extinction event"

Tsk, tsk, tsk...  seems you've swallowed it hook line and sinker.

Look Mozz, you have no proof to believe what you do.

Fine, that upsets you.

but honestly you'll have to do better than chuck a tanty at me.

PJ the cost of cutting emissions is likely to be far less than even the short term costs of climate change. It isn't committing suicide.

Sure it's easy. It doesn't involve a major depression, just a 1% or so cut in economic growth over the next 50 years. We are not as addicted to cheap energy as the doomsayers make out.

Check the IPCC reports for how much we should cut back. As always, there is no certainty that a given cut will prevent a runaway climate change scenario.