So you spent several years mulling a question that seems to be based upon one assertion:

The UK will not suffer if the global temperature rises by 4 deg C, in fact it may benefit.

In your years of mulling, did you come to a conclusion as to what detailed effects a global rise in temperature rise of 4 deg C will have on your little island? Or are you just saying it will be something like London now + 4C; Aberdeen now + 4C etc? You must have some serious models to be so sure of your conclusion. Perhaps you can describe your methods in a paper for a journal. Or a book, even!

Dung, it looks like a case of the prisoner's dilemma. The UK benefits only if all other countries go for carbon reduction. If the UK defects from the mainstream, it will suffer.

Sorry to pounce; take it as a compliment ;-) Discussions are boring without a source of disagreement.

Discussion involves, among other things, getting to the bottom of what other have said. Your central assertion that a global rise of 4C will have no effect on the UK needs explanation to be taken seriously, as does your new assertion that the equator would see virtually no temperature rise. Can you justify these statements?

Too often the claims of catastrophe are misrepresented and misunderstood. A catastrophe occurs when there is no means to mitigate the problem that causes it. In the case of 'catastrophic' warming we're considering periods of 10's of decades -centuries even - and in THAT context people move, businesses move etc.
For a catastrophe to happen under these circumstances we must consider the status quo to remain unchanged and THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN. Even now, people are moving (or considering moving) from areas that are prone to flooding, coastal erosion etc. Any rising sea levels won't happen overnight and the changes that WILL occur will happen transparently for all intent and purpose.
So what if temperatures rise 4C in the UK? So what if the sea level rises x feet? Unless it happens TONIGHT (or within the next couple of years) why should we worry?
This is, as we all know, EVOLUTION - if even on a small scale - and something we humans are rather good at.

So is that it? 4 degrees of warming and all we get is nicer weather and wetter feet at the beach? I'm feeling a bit deflated. There are academics and programmers all over the world busy with computers and models trying to figure out what happens when the climate warms by several degrees and all they had to do was ask you! They'll be feeling pretty stupid when they find out you're not even a scientist...

As I have said elsewhere, I know little and have few answers. But I know enough to question that which I find incredible. You may be talking to BH and not the world, but does that mean your arguments should be held to lower standards? Silly question, I know. Otherwise how could you post something like, "...the world has been much warmer in the past and it is still here...", and expect anything but ridicule?

On the economic side, unless I misunderstood, you seem to have no objection to £38 billion of defence spending and yet object to the same amount being spent upon trains. But it is not clear to me why buying expensive military hardware (which one would hope never to use) is economically more beneficial than buying trains and tracks (which one would hope would be used like crazy).

Wait a minute, weren't you one of those objecting to wind-farms on the basis that the money was taken from other parts of the economy and so would kill jobs elsewhere, however many jobs were created in the wind industry? Now you are telling me that it is fine to take the money as long as you spend it on useless military kit. You have a consistency problem.

I ask questions, because I know that I know nothing. Many posters here are blissfully unaware of themselves.

Shub:

If you can't say anything useful, don't say anything at all.

Yeah, probably best, after all nobody else seems to want to discuss it. Not surprising really, since the question has such weak foundations. Apart from what I already mentioned, you suggest that preventing the world from warming by reducing fossil fuel use might be the government's main priority. How much of the £600+ billion a year that the UK government spends goes towards this end? If it is the "main priority" it must be a pretty significant proportion, wouldn't you say? So how much is it?

"Otherwise how could you post something like, "...the world has been much warmer in the past and it is still here...", and expect anything but ridicule?"

Not sure I understand that BB, the "natural" temperature of the Earth over the last 600 million years appears higher than 15C for almost the entire period - in geological terms that is.

I believe you'll find that the Climate Change Act commits us to £18bn/annum until 2050 to get a reduction of 89% in our CO2 output, Using today's figure of the UK's contribution to CO2 emissions as 1.8%, and falling, that means we will have diverted £720bn out of actual economic/social progress to get the world's emissions down by 1.44%. I'll leave it to you to decide whether spending 2.5% of your taxes, and simultaneously doubling or trebling, if the experience of Denmark and Germany are anything to go by, the cost of energy are worthwhile activities. Unless you're a Greenie of course and don't give a damn about human beings.

Yeah, probably best, after all nobody else seems to want to discuss it.

So if the "main priority" only gets 2.5% of taxes, let's hope that health, education and welfare don't become "main priorities" any time soon.

So £18 billion/year is not much in your book? Now whose being ridiculous? Seems like you come here, not to be constructive,but to pick a fight, particularly with Dung for some reason.

it's bit's shtick - he knows nothing and has no opinions...he just tries to ridicule and never succeeds. The very model of a modern fatuous twerp. A sceptic with no knowledge apart from what his indoctrinators told him...appear to know nothing but at all costs ridicule people who do not kowtow to the IPCC.

David Porter, no, £18 billion/year is not a small amount. But that is not what I said, if you read it. Dung suggested that the government's "main priority" was reducing fossil fuel use. If you had 600bn to spend wouldn't you spend more on your "main priority" than on anything else?

I have nothing against Dung, it is just that this discussion is so full of holes. If you think differently, why not address his question and not me?

BitBucket, I don't think the debate is full of holes and even if I did I would not have attacked it in the "smart" manner you did, and often do. As to the £18 billion, you can argue that you didn't say it was a small amount but, whether you like it or not, that was the message received. Surely it's not necessary to attack every point you disagree with.