muso wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 7:45am:

Though in the context of AGW and it's impacts on human society however - "our history" really applies to the history of permanent human settlements and significant built infrastructure - 10,000 years at most, with the majority of large human settlements and infrastructure being developed in the last 1000 years.

In this context:
We currently have THE highest temperatures in our history.

We also have THE highest amounts of CO2 in our atmosphere according to our history.

Ajax wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 3:44pm:

 

  cum get sum you planet accountant punk 

Ajax wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 3:44pm:


What is the significance of mammals in this argument?  Do you think that the argument is that we'll suddenly all keel over because of the high temperatures.

Your problem is that you truly don't understand what you're trying to argue against, and it's laughable.  You need to read some of these IPCC Reports that Watts talks about so that at least you know what arguments you are opposing 

Tell me what the significant is for mammals that were well adapted to the paleo temperatures of the time.  Did mammals have problems with salination of coastal aquifers? You tell me. You brought them up.

Quote:


The bubbles in your beer are like the holes in your argument.  They rise because the density of the gas is less than the density of the beer.  What's your point?

Quote:


I can ask a similar question - If it's foggy in the morning, do you refuse to get out of bed because fog is water, and you can drown in water?

The toxicity of CO2 is a very minor matter in the scheme of things. Now, do you really think that anybody is  asking you to stop breathing or stop drinking beer? -  because in terms of CO2 emissions,  it's so insignificant that it really doesn't matter. It's fog compared to the ocean.

You knew that, didn't you? I don't believe that you could be that thick.

Quote:


We've considered that particular argument, and the data says otherwise. There were higher levels of CO2 and higher temperatures millions of years in the past.  So what?  The rate of change is the issue here. 

Quote:



No, because we haven't had much success to date in curbing emissions. We are headed for some very interesting times ahead, or at least our kids are.  If you ask me, we're screwed.  The question is - how screwed?

Quote:


Define "it" and I'll answer your question.

The religion of denial is dying fast as it becomes patently obvious that greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion, cement manufacture, clearing of tropical rainforest etc are resulting in dangerous climate change.

The risks associated with each level of temperature rise have been quite comprehensively assessed. We're on the way to at least + 4 Celsius degrees with all a huge range of complex consequences, possibly more depending on what action the governments of the world take.   

I am a conservative and I believe we have serious problems with rising CO2 and climate change.

I also see and hear a lot of  left wing Bogans that are climate change deniers.

Perhaps we could re examine the first premise.

(my apologies to all the left wing Bogans who are not climate deniers)

Ajax wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2013 at 3:44pm:


Urban Legend No. 132

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-1/final-report/default.htm

Quote:

Climate change is real no one is denying that.

Climate change has been with us since the Earth formed, otherwise we would still be a molten rock of lava.

The Earth cools and warms in accordance with its orbit around the sun and what the sun is doing at the time.

Its the natural cycle of the Earth.

What is not settled is that mans emissions of CO2 are going to destroy life as we know it today.

Now if governments were fairdinkum they wouldn't allow the future of all humanity to be placed in the hands of wall street and the stock exchange.

That's how serious the problem really is, ie. trading carbon credits on the exchange will keep us all safe and sound from the boogey man.

Remember gentlemen when the bankers manage to get the $2 trillion dollar carbon credit market going.

THE LAST THING ON THEIR MINDS WILL BE TO REDUCE MANMADE CO2 EMISSIONS.

That's how real the problem is.

Ajax wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 11:35am:

Nice straw man.

But despite that - It is "settled" and has been "settled" for decades now that anthropogenic greenhouse emissions will have and are having a significant impact on human society.

Only the ignorant flat-earthers continue to deny this.

Ajax wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 11:35am:

Emissions trading is a proven strategy for emissions reductions that has been working successfully for decades under the US Clean Air Act.

Only the ignorant flat-earthers continue to deny this.

muso wrote on Aug 24^th, 2013 at 2:09pm:

fARMBOY DOESN'T GOOGLE ANYTHING: HIS MATES SHOW HIM THE ROPES AND HE REPEATS!!

IF YOU'RE NOT SHOWING HIM THE ROPES HE AINT YOUR FRIEND!