Imagine the money spent on this fraud was spent to clean up the environment. Humans, animals and plants would all be much better off.

Aidan, I did not think you would fall for the fraud.
Nothing has changed since Bob Carter wrote the following:"The question in context, therefore, is not ‘do humans have an effect on global climate’, but rather ‘what is the sign and magnitude of the net global human effect on climate, and can it be measured’. Remarkably, given the expenditure and effort spent looking for it since 1990, no summed human effect on global temperature has ever been identified or measured. Therefore, the human signal most probably lies buried in the variability and noise of the natural climate system. This is so to a degree that as a statement of fact we cannot even be certain whether the net human signal is one of warming or cooling4. Though it is true that many scientists anticipate on theoretical grounds that net warming is the more likely, no strong evidence exists that any such warming would ipso facto be dangerous. III.
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/CarterSept2008.pdf

There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate

Leo Lane,
>Aidan, I did not think you would fall for the fraud.

Yes you did! You've fallen so deeply for the fraud that you think everyone who doesn't share your idiotic opinion has fallen for the fraud. You're so convinced of it that you ignore genuine evidence and instead rely on decade old opinion pieces to make your case. After all, climatologists (except maybe those funded by the Kochs), meteorologists, oceanographers, NASA etc are all in on it, but you can trust bloggers – or at least you could a decade ago, before it became crystal clear that the warming hasn't stopped.

>no summed human effect on global temperature has ever been identified or measured.

It's true that attribution of the cause of warming is not part of the measurement process, and we don't have the ability to compare our planet with an otherwise identical one devoid of human activity. However, if we plot our planets temperatures against time, we find that we're quite rapidly warming even though we should (if past trends had continued) have entered a cooling phase.

But of course you think that proves nothing. However hot it gets, you prefer to think that human activity might not be responsible for any of it - as if some unknown unknown was stopping human activity having a warming effect, and a second unknown unknown was simultaneously causing the warming effect that human activity could be expected to have.

Tell me, have you ever heard of Bayesian probability?

Will this increase in heat cause increasing evaporation & cause more precipitation ?

>Will this increase in heat cause increasing evaporation & cause more precipitation ?
Yes it will. But precipitation only occurs when there's uplift.

On average, the world will get wetter. But some parts of the world, including southern Australia, will get drier. And in much of the world, rainfall will e more erratic.

Aidan,
If southern Australia is predicted to become drier then would evaporation from a fully flooded Lake Eyre help towards more rain in the area ?