Actual IPPC sea level rise predictions due to “all kinds of effects, primarily thermal expansion of the oceans” 20-50cm.

They then say that even though ice sheet melt is occurring it is difficult to be precise about quantity. But IF the West Antarctic Ice Sheet were to collapse (which is entirely possible) this would add another 500-600cm to sea level rise.

Seems clear enough to me.

As I said before current global warming HAS been shown to have a significant anthropogenic contribution. The argument is just about precisely HOW MUCH. I don’t understand why people willfully disregard the actual science in favour of the strange, twisted outpourings of people like Monckton. We can have arguments about what, if any, kind of government policy should be derived from the evidence of climate science. But the actual science itself is pretty clear.

I think this quote is taken from a British Sunday newspaper. Veracity and truth in British newspapers, particularly with regard to science writing, can be taken with a pinch of salt. But assuming that this quote is correct. The full quote being “If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster. It’s like safety on public transport. The only way humans will act is if there’s been an accident”. Now this quote is obviously taken out of context from the full conversation, which we do not have the full transcript of, and could have many number of interpretations. You seem to be projecting your own prejudices onto the quote in saying that it implies “that Houghton is wantingly wishing for disasters so that he and his cohorts can forge good (ahem) environmental policy.” It would seem to me that a more measured and reasonable interpretation would be that Houghton is merely making a general observation about human behavior with regard to risk and danger.

As for the general understanding of climate change “being based on faulty assumptions” – maybe you would like to back up this assertion ? Yes there is debate about HOW MUCH anthropogenic global warming is occurring, but not about whether it is ACTUALLY happening.

Saying of his own “just because I publish these papers, and just because my area of expertise is closely aligned with the study of energy and the climate, that doesn’t mean I am right”.

Saying of Monckton “now does that mean he is not justified in having opinions on climate change ? No. Just because he doesn’t have a technical background in science or it’s related sub-topics, that doesn’t mean he is necessarily wrong”.

I wouldn’t call that an ad hominem attack. Abraham is inviting the listener/reader to actually listen to the arguments regardless of expertise.

I have to say that I think Dr. Abraham makes his points clearly. Every citation I’ve tried to track down is there, and it says what Abraham claims it says. That’s a stark and sharp contrast to Mr. Monckton’s claims, which are always difficult to track down, and whose citations often say something different from what he claims.

I’ve asked Mr. Monckton to stop telling false tales about DDT and Rachel Carson before, and though he won’t deign to answer me, one might wish that for his audiences’ sakes, he’d stick to the facts.

If Mr. Monckton is as severely in error on other issues as he has been on the issues of DDT and malaria, the mosquitoes should sue him for libel.

More importantly, Abraham makes the same, common mistake that is made by non-scientists or bad scientists: confusing causation with correlation. Even if there is ice sheet melting due to Global Warming, he (and others) are making the assumption that the warming (and hence the melting) is anthropogenic. That has not been demonstrated regardless of how much Abraham believes there is “general” agreement. Very bad science.