My background is unimportant, but I will remind you that in previous private conversations I admitted to having worked on the Apollo missions. Y’ano,the science that did something real.

So, when you get over yourself answer the question posed above. You see that is what is important. Solutions that are meaningful and provide results.

But, for anyone else still listening, Merry Christmas, that goes to you and yours too Luke.

You denialists don’t even have the basics to conduct an elementary discussion. Golly me …. how tedious. If you think the real world doesn’t generate probabilities that you use every day then you are more stupid than I thought.

You really are not very savvy are you – as you don’t have to deal with climate in your nice day to day air-conditioned cossetted life. Change 3 years good, 3 years bad, three year break even and the economics of an entire cropping region may fail ….

Alarmism in in the recent paleo evidence – go and read Brian Faden’s book – The Great Warming for Xmas.

Sheesh! Keep working on it! You might get a clue that does not guarantee a negatively impacted civilization, instead of the might happen scenarios so prevalent in the alarmism.

Cohers – just for Xmas imagine if AGW was substantially correct yet the policy response of limiting energy was equally unpalatable.

Just what a vengeful God (and I’m an atheist :-) ) would serve up as a marvellous dilemma for humanity.

Do you hear defending the ETS? I’m not sure – perhaps it’s brilliant – or is it totally stupid. A start – or the utter end !

CoRev – you can’t “control” the weather (well cloud seeders might give it a nudge at times) but you can likely change the odds. It’s about probability distributions not events.

It’s about changes in circulation systems more than temperature. Energy balances and how it plays out. How many years out of 10 you win, lose or break even.

Landholders have gone behind the shed and blown their brains out over losing their father’s and grandfather’s property to drought bankruptcy. It’s serious stuff. It eats like cancer. Take a turn on the rural counsellers desk some time.

For Australians it IS the defining climate issue.

There is no worthier a problem.

So a climate policy of substance is of some pith and moment. AGW or not. Hence my bolshiness.

And at the same time you propose that we control the weather by reducing minor amounts of CO2. Neither proposal makes any sense.

Empty dams and dust don’t grow crops.

AGW or not ….

AGW is highly likely to make matters worse on an increasingly crowded planet.

BTW if you think you’re going to move all peoples from earthquake zones around the world into dysfunctional ghettos of despair – good luck to you? Might be like Israel and Palestine perhaps?

After CO2 is debunked, and I do believe we are just a couple of years from that happening, what do you think will be the next environmental issue. My personal vote is on earth quakes (EQ). I think we will be trying to move populace into smaller and less dense housing away from EQ zones. BTW, one of the most severe quakes in the US happened in Missouri, and caused damage all the way to the East Coast, nearly 1/2 the country effected.