This is so far off the mark to almost be a work of fiction or just cherry picked observations to support a confirmation bias.

During the last 800,000 years, the highest pre industrial reading for Co2 was 289.6 pmv. Since then it had risen into previously uncharted territory and was 386 ppmv as of 2010 and currently increasing by 2 ppmv. (nature)

To be sure the sun usually drives the climate, however it has been in a waning phase since the mid seventies(NASA) And all while we recorded some of the warmest years on record.

Co2 is called a greenhouse gas because it produces a greenhouse effect and is a fantastic plant stimulant fertilizer, hence the term greenhouse effect.

And given an acre of trees can evaporate 2.5 times the moisture of open water and given more luxuriant growth evaporates or aspires more of it, one would expect to see more consequent moisture in the atmosphere, and given the excellent thermal blanket effect of atmospheric moisture some additional trapping of radiant heat.

And borne out by endlessly repeatable laboratory tests!

I just don't know why these folk get their knickers in a not at the idea of moving away from Co2 creating fossil fuels, in favour of much cheaper cleaner alternatives, and we most of all are blessed with mucho plenty.

Cheaper cleaner and more sustainable energy has no choice than promote prosperity. no two ways about it.

So explain all the smoke and mirrors obfuscation and fear mongering when faced with piloted change?

Unless you factor in IQ's lower than the ambient temperatures, or the Sergeant schultz's syndrome or just plain greed that is so powerful it just overrides all other considerations or inconvenient facts?

If you'd like to check my numbers go to ftp//ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pab/data/paleo/antarctica/vostok/readme-pet.+1999.txt. or as above until readme, then-vostok-Co2.txt.
Rhrosty.

I found this article shocking, for someone presenting themselves as an academic to present such an error ridden article that it's hard to know where to start and if there is any point.

The author has indicated that they have read a number of books about climate change, judging by this piece I'll wager they are all or mostly by contrarians.

All of the points he has raised have been addressed many times so of which are out right lies straight from right wing think tanks, you know the same ones that suggest smoking isn't that bad.

but then again what would you expect from someone who use to run an oil company who has made some rather interesting reviews of other people work in the past contributing to and Australian article a few years ago.

My colleagues and I were concerned to see Dr Brady referred to as "a climate change researcher at Macquarie University" in The Australian's article, as he is a retired paleontologist.

— Professor Lesley Hughes, Head of Department of Biological Science, Macquarie University, 28th July, 2011

Climate change science has a long history.

A very short article going back to July 2012:

http://www.braidwoodtimes.com.au/story/3848574/old-news-goes-viral/

More recent evidence that fossil fuels are seen to have an impact:

http://www.ciel.org/news/smoke-and-fumes/

But, regardless of whether the climate has been impacted by man or not; changes are occurring.
There are coastal areas in Southern USA that have fine day floods, where suburban areas are flooded even though there have been no adverse weather. Fine day floods are associated with king tides and tidal waters travel up storm water pipes or seep up through porous ground.

The melt season has begun in Greenland well ahead of the usual time.
The Earth's tilt is said to have changed due to ice melt in Greenland and Antarctica.
Disease vectors are changing.
Warm water fish are being found in areas that had normally been associated with cooler water fish. Snapper and yellow fin king fish are being caught off the East Coast of Tasmania, for example.

Sorry, the article referred to goes back to July 1912.

Well well, don't these posters prove the old adage.

There is none so blind as those who refuse to see.

You could whack this bunch with a baseball bat, & they wouldn't notice, if their betters had told them it didn't happen.

Not even going to bother reading this article. Why would I when the headlining quote for it can be debunked with a simple Google search?

http://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm