Yes Bazz, the planet is entering a cooling phase, & the warmest conmen are getting desperate. They have to get some restrictions on the population before their entire scam goes up in smoke, rather than the planet.

Binoy is of course an academic. We all know that academia has benefited highly from research grant money, so hugely that they have no idea of how they will replace that funding, when the global warming bubble bursts. That desperation is becoming more obvious as time passes, & none of their cataclysms come to pass.

Last year the frosts were so bad we lost natives, indigenous to this area. We will probably be opening sky resorts on that white stuff they said would never fall again.

Good to see another effort by the climate fraud promoters heading for well deserved failure.
They have no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, but that makes no difference to the assertion of their lies.

Robert Carter, a world renowned climate scientist, sadly no longer with us, explained the science as follows: “However, our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails."
Bob Carter http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ZUVPX02KD1UHZQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/08/nrclimate08.xml&page=2

I am pleased and vindicated to see that the usual suspects are no-where to be seen when it comes to debunking or pushing back on CC.
I am not worldly, although I have stepped on most of the 'world', but I am also not without some awareness of my surroundings.
Now simply because I cannot give an arousing account of CC does not lessen my 'feel' for the topic.
I have always refused to accept or believe the CC mantra, and always 'felt' that it did not seem logical or even possible, if based only on what man has done over the last 100 or so years.
I never accepted, what I consider as 'alarmist' statements which will see oceans rise by tens of metres (in fact up to 70 metres) world wide.
The physics do not add up, what little research I have done, yet the 'expert' would have us believe that we will be inundated in water.
I'd like to know where this water is coming from because to raise the oceans volume by as much as 70meteres, with the amount of ice, snow and clouds we have on this planet currently, sorry can't see it.
Now if we are going to import ice or water from another planet, then I will sit up and listen.
Until then, not withstanding the land masses of the earth that are already sinking, and there are a few, I will not accept the water rising fable.
I have a feeling it may rise by a few inches 2 or 3 at most.
Big deal, I can say that because it is nothing compared to the extraordinarily outrageous predictions of 60 or 70 metres.

ALTRAV,
The water for a 70m sea level rise would come from the ice in Greenland and Antarctica melting. Hypothetically if it all melted, that really is how much it would raise sea levels by.

The climate scientists knew by the early '90s that such melting, if it occurred, would take centuries. Meanwhile, although meltwater from Greenland and Antarctica would increase, most of the rise in sea level would just be from thermal expansion of the oceans. But the media weren't so interested in the truth - they seem to prefer catastrophe or nothing!

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Leo Lane,

A broken link to a 2007 newspaper report? Really?

Back then it was easy to fool people without a good understanding of statistics. But the evidence since then makes it hard for you to fool anyone but yourself.

And try to learn the difference between renown and notoriety!

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz,
Despite Plimer's deliberately misleading assertions, human actions have increased atmospheric CO2 levels by more than a third.

Bazz, I'm sorry but I don't see it, I can't see it.
Come on think about it, it just is NOT possible.
I get angry when people lie to me and keep promoting the lie.
One of the reasons I can't agree with all this that the amount of emissions through burning fossil fuels, compared to the volume of air and along with the fact that the emissions are all localised.
Such as big cities, or industrial areas.
Now the heavy stuff once it's cooled down comes back to earth and goes back to join its other carbon based mates in the ground.
The other lighter than air stuff is also so diluted by the ratio of it to the air or atmosphere that I consider it negligible.
I have lived in LA, and KL and both are bad for pollution on some evenings, but come the morning they are as fresh as a new day.
No pollution.
Because KL is part of the Klang valley system between KL and port Klang it is rare to get any wind except overnight.
So CO2 accumulates in the valley, then overnight that which has not gone to ground is disbursed into the atmosphere with no residual evidence of ever having been there in the first place.