Sorry, but I have no wish to subscribe to "Classical Liberalism", never mind study it, so I will decline.

Thank you for your kind compliment on the quality of my slinging.

David Hume, Adam Smith, and the Scottish Enlightment were all fonts of Classical Liberalism.  All part of the U.K., last time I looked at a map.

Try it.  You might like it.

Elroch, it's not global warming anymore it's "climate change". 

Global warming refers to the general rise in some definition of average global temperature over recent (and future) years. It remains a real phenomenon that is certain to continue. This thread was created in response to claims in another thread that global warming had stopped.

Climate change is the whole range of associated changes in the climate.

So they are different "it"s, and both still exist.

I just came across the following article. Perhaps it may be pertinent to this discussion.

Underwater Volcanoes Play a Part In Global Warming?

http://www.viralglobalnews.com/science/underwater-volcanoes-play-part-global-warming/29195/

I don't claim to be an expert in climate change, but I do know there is a lot of convincing evidence that it is occurring. Whether or not it's anthropogenic is debatable. 

Interesting article, pawnwhacker, but note it specifically refers to "long term climate cycles" - this means very long in human terms, tens of thousands of years.

It is worth emphasising it can have no signicant part in the monotone, rapid, accelerating increase  in atmospheric CO2 levels (38% so far, if I recall, inevitably heading for 100% this century) since the industrial revolution. Every feature of this is consistent with it being anthropogenic, rather than some change in natural events.

After 2014 was determined to have the highest average temperatures ever recorded, understanding is improving of the temporary "hiatus" in surface temperature rise after the exceptional peak of 1998.

Published today:

• THIS WEEK IN SCIENCE

CLIMATE CHANGE

This is why many people don't trust enviromentalists:

From nationalreview.com; from a "Corner" post by David French.

"The facts of the case were astounding. As the environmentalist Left pushed new, job-killing regulations in the interests of “public health,” Dr. Enstrom took his own look at the data and determined that the health threat from diesel emissions was being wildly overstated. As he looked further, he discovered that the lead researcher pushing the new regulations actually possessed a fraudulent degree, purchased from “Thornhill University,” a shady, long-distance diploma mill. Moreover, members of the state’s “scientific review panel” tasked with evaluating the science had in some cases overstayed term limits by decades. At least one was a known ideological radical. (He was a member of the infamous “Chicago Seven.”) Dr. Enstrom did what a scientist should do. He exposed public corruption, called out fake scientific credentials, and worked to save California from onerous and unnecessary regulations. So UCLA fired him. After more than 30 years on the job. "

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/415100/victory-academic-freedom-and-defeat-junk-environmental-science-david-french?

Who needs the environment anyway?

To be serious, your post is from an blatantly political source. There is no politics in this forum. Stick to scientific sources. In addition, this is a forum about climate change, not about the environment in general. If that is confusing to you, you need to improve your knowledge.

Hi, Elroch. Perhaps you can give your opinion on the following email that I just received? Thanks.

Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, Professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, Professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide,

and Director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies.

He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.

Born 12 February 1946              (age 67)

Residence = Australia

Nationality =  Australian

Fields = Earth Science , Geology , Mining Engineering

Institutions =  University of New England , University of Newcastle , University of Melbourne , University of Adelaide

Alma mater =  University of New South Wales , Macquarie University Thesis =  The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern  Australia   (1976)

Notable awards =  Eureka Prize   (1995,2002), Centenary Medal   (2003), Clarke Medal   (2004)

Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?

Here is what Prof. Ian Plimer said and could not have said any better!

PLIMER:

"Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland. Its first spewing of volcanic ash has in just 4 DAYS negated every single effort you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.

Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it's that   vital   chemical compound that every plant   requires  to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.

I know, it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids  "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your $0.50 light bulbs with $10 light bulbs ....well, all of those things you have done have all  gone down the tubes in just four days.

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes in 4 DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon.  And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.

I don't really want to drop rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. Yes, folks, Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it!!!!

Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.



Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario!

Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention 'Global Warming' anymore, but just 'Climate Change' - you know why?

It's because the planet has cooled by 0.7 degrees in the past few years and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.

And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except for making you poorer. It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure.

But, relax......give the world a hug and have a nice day.

Quite simply, it's misleading nonsense including multiple serious and blatant falsehoods (anyone should be capable of verifying this: I strongly recommend doing this as an exercise, especially for those who are not in the habit of checking all facts). It was written by someone without the slightest hint of the attention to accuracy that is the most basic requirement of a scientist. [While it strains credulity that it is by someone with scientific credentials, it is possible that the author is very senile].

So, did it con you?

That is not a rhetorical question: I'd like an answer. 

[EDIT: I originally demanded one, but that was a bit overbearing...]

Global warming alarmists:

Elroch: 

So, did it con you?

That is not a rhetorical question: an answer is required.

                                                    **************************

No, it did not "con" me. I thought that it was written in a rather flippant manner, dripping with sarcasm, not what I would expect from a scientist. I am rather accustomed to getting emails of questionable veracity.

                                                    **************************

(anyone should be capable of verifying this: I strongly recommend doing this as an exercise,

                                                    **************************

   I shall do so and report back. Meanwhile, if you can elaborate a bit about the multiple, blatant falsehoods it would be appreciated.

   I am not one who is smitten with a gullibility handicap. In fact, I even question the extant nature of Santa Claus. 

News Flash:

I just did a Google search concerning Professor Ian Ruthrford Plimer and have found multiple reports. I have not yet had a chance to delve further but will soon do so. Here is just one report that I am about to read: 

http://www.skepticalscience.com/101-responses-Ian-Plimer-climate-questions.html

Here, too:

http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=134

A small sample from same:

The questions 1: Is climate change normal? A: Yes. Plimer’s answer agrees with mainstream science.

2: Is the global warming measured today unusual? A: No. A better answer is that it is unusual, but not unprecedented — see Q11.

3: What drove climate change before humans were on Earth? No answer is given at this point (but see question 26), just the false claim that past changes were not driven by carbon dioxide. See my response to Q26.

4: Are we in a period of global warming? A: Yes and No. Much of Plimer’s answer — that it depends on the time scale that you consider — agrees with mainstream science.

5: Will the 0.5◦ warming we experienced from 1977 to 1998 occur again? A: We don’t know. Actually any answer other than ‘yes’ is inconsistent with Plimer’s claims about natural variability (as well as being inconsistent with mainstream understanding of natural variability and of course mainstream projections of anthropogenic global warming).

6: If we have dangerous warming and the global temperature has increased 0.8◦ since the Little Ice Age, does this mean that the ideal temperature for the Earth is that of the Little Ice Age? A: Implies No. It is the rate of warming that is as ‘dangerous’ as the amount of warming, i.e. the question of whether climate change is happening faster than human and natural systems can adapt, and also the extent to which we are committed to further rapid change because of existing greenhouse gas concentrations and a commitment to energy systems that will further increase these concentrations.

7: The temperature increase between breakfast and lunch is far higher than the 0.8◦C rise over the last 150 years. Why is such a small change dangerous yet larger changes each day are not? No actual answer is given — just speculation about what a hypothetical teacher might say. Small differences in the long-term average temperature determine what plants (including crops) grow where, as is seen by the dependence on altitude, latitude etc. In some cases such boundaries between vegetation types are quite abrupt. 2

8: If global warming is human in origin, when will we feel it and when will it be dangerous? A: This whole response is confused. Warming in the Arctic is becoming obvious and disruptive.

9: In the last 100 years has there been global warming and global cooling? A: Yes, both. For the global average this agrees with mainstream science. The main periods of cooling seem to be northern hemisphere changes. The southern hemisphere doesn’t show much cooling.

10a: In the last 100 years we have had global warming alternating with global cooling on 60 year cycles. This introduction to the substantive question is the false premise of 60 year cycles– see Q72.

10b: Which part of the global warming in the last 100 years has been driven by human actions and which is natural? A: We don’t know but human component is likely to be small. See analysis by Stott et al. [2001] that gives quantitative estimates of the human contribution to 20th century change.3

11: Have past climate changes been greater and quicker than modern changes? A: Yes. Plimer’s answer agrees with mainstream science. Examples are times around the Younger Dryas and especially any climate changes from asteroid impacts, e.g. possibly the event(s) 65 million years ago at the time that dinosaurs became extinct.

12: Does the Sun drive warmings and coolings of the Earth? A: Yes. The sun is the overall driver of the climate. The various causes of changes in climate are listed in Q26. 

Also noteworthy:

http://www.pps.k12.or.us/schools/mttabor/files/rgroom/prof-plimer-101-questions-response-pdf.pdf

Also, in regard to volcanic emissions vs. fossil fuel emissions:

The burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use results in the emission into theatmosphere of approximately 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year worldwide, according to the EIA. The fossil fuels emissions numbers are about 100 times bigger than even the maximum estimated volcanic CO2 fluxes. Our understanding of volcanic discharges would have to be shown to be very mistaken before volcanic CO2 discharges could be considered anything but a bit player in contributing to the recent changes observed in the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere.

Source: https://www.skepticalscience.com/volcanoes-and-global-warming.htm

Furthermore:

Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO₂ budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO₂ is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO₂ annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO₂, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO₂ tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO₂ is large, the global fossil fuel CO₂ emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO₂ not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

A short time ago (geologically speaking) the question "Which produces more CO₂, volcanic or human activity?" would have been answered differently. Volcanoes would have tipped the scale. Now, human presence, activity, and the resultant production of CO₂, through the burning of fossil fuels, have all climbed at an ever-increasing rate. On the other hand, looking back through the comparatively short duration of human history, volcanic activity has, with a few notable disturbances, remained relatively steady.

Volcanoes are still awesome, even though they don't produce CO₂ at a rate that swamps the human signature, contributing to global warming. In fact, spectacular eruptions like that of Mount Pinatubo are demonstrated to contribute to global cooling through the injection of solar energy reflecting ash and other small particles.

Source: http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

This last post, if the source is credible (appears to be), puts the nail in the coffin in regards to that email that I received.