cohenite, we could do links at ten paces eg. http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

(Anyway, by reversing your logic why are CO2 levels rising if warming is not occurring?)

I'm all for erring on the side of solid research and caution. The relationship between CO2 concentration and temperate is too obvious to ignore, as is the involvement of the ocean, even if we do not understand every pathway. That is all I wish to say here.

You're all over the internet on this, where you have been answered sufficiently by others. I don't want to join the turkey shoot.

For god sake Luci, despite billions spent trying they have still not been able to establish any link.

Do you really think that if they had one they would not be plastering it in 10 foot high letters all over the world.

IPCC is collapsing like a pack of cards. The politicians are trying desperately to keep it going, but they are failing. It is over, try a new scars.

Oh, go ahead join the turkey shoot; the high calibre weaponry of the believers is always stimulating and such a tonic.

Sks isn't a link. it's a state of mind; a defective one.

"The relationship between CO2 concentration and temperate is too obvious to ignore,"

You didn't even look at Lansner's article did you? CO2 is released by a warming ocean. I didn't say warming hadn't occurred over the 20thC, or from about 1850 at the end of the LIA.

The key graph is the CO2/temp one from 1998; just out of interest, because, as I say, I'm a student of the belief systems and psychology of humans, how do you explain that? No fairy tales please, or damp squibs about not understanding every pathway; the IPCC has no doubts, every pathway is known to 95% certainty.

"The key graph is the CO2/temp one from 1998..."

The "denial" is settled.

If the politicians and scientists at the UN political body, the IPCC, were honest, they would acknowledge that they base their alarmist climate change assertions on invalid computer models, not empirical scientific evidence. In fact, they have not got any empirical scientific evidence to support their hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming.

Sadly, the IPCC's assertions are disseminated faithfully by propagandists such as the supposedly impartial ABC, and accepted unquestionably by the AGW believers including our politicians and educators.

Hasbeen: "For god sake Luci, despite billions spent trying they have still not been able to establish any link."

Don't know why I'm bothering but, should you want to educate yourself, and to save me the keystrokes, please go to:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect-intermediate.htm

then to http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming-intermediate.htm .

I've chosen "intermediate" level for you as you claim expert judgement in this and should find no difficulty in understanding the argument. Personally, I think your real strength lies in commenting on political and current affairs.

Now, I'm still waiting for the fine print you assert exists in IPCC AR5 that says it does NOT believe in a link between CO2 and warming (air land and ocean). Just to help you out, get the report in part or in full at: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/#.Uk4Y-NLTzTp

Sorry to push you on this, which you were probably already attending to, but I was bored in my work and needed a distraction for awhile. Looking forward to you coming up with the goods, as always.