Sorry Squeerzy... your 'Climate Change' plan to take over the world in the name of Socialism won't work.

We are awake...that's the problem.(for you and your ilk)

Do you have shares in a Carbon Trading Company ?

Curmudgeon -
Interesting point, that CO2 levels are not out of the range of IPCC projections, though emissions are.

Though according to this link http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_co2.html they are close to mid-point (around 290ppm at 2010) rather than "well below". So it's marginally reassuring that the Earth is apparently able to take a little more of our abuse than we thought. But the level is still way above the past 600,000 years (see additional graph at that site) and quite enough to cause havoc.

On methane, according to this source http://www.csiro.au/news/GlobalMethaneRising.html it resumed rising in 2008. Anything more recent?

Others -
Ah yes, the great conspiracy, a cabal of climate scientists, feathering their nests with thousands of dollars of taxpayer money. What about the hundreds of billions of dollars (or is that trillions) the fossil fuel industry has at stake? What about their motives? They're the ones feeding disinformation into the blogosphere, the stuff some of you so avidly recycle.

Or is it the great climate-scientist/socialist/corporate/jewish/tree-hugging/communist/callathumpian/... conspiracy to take over the world?

Malcolm - I wasn't quoting IPCC, you may have noticed. But of course the Academy of Sciences is made up of scientists, so you won't believe it either. Some of them are very conservative in their political views though, so I'm not sure you ought to so blithely ignore them.

Hasbeen - deleted for abuse again I see. And I'm the one accused of "ranting".

Oh, and then there's being called a liar and a charlatan, which apparently doesn't constitute abuse on this site.

Depends which side of the 'debate' you're on around here, Geoff.

This discussion just reinforces how pointless it is trying to discuss climate change at OLO. Thanks for trying anyway.

cj, geoff didn't write that article to have a "discussion", it's clearly to berate anyone who disagrees with him - where did he try to have a discussion?

As usual it's full of hysterical exaggerations and half truths, which is normal for people like geoff who never let the facts get in the way of a rant.

There has been no debate in Australia, all the government and educational institutions who have Climate Change fora and conferences never have anyone who is a skeptic - so where has there been any debate, that is evidently so overwhelming.

The fact of the matter is people in Australia are skeptical of their own accord without the need for any kind of public debate. Maybe if there actually was debate, the believers might get some sway, but by always having cosy little "believers only" love fests, people are naturally skeptical.

What have they got to hide, why don't they engage with skeptical scientists? Why do they say there is a debate when there is none?

Show me when there has been public debate on this - where equal numbers of scientists from both sides of the AGW belief have engaged?

Again, all we see is hysterics, world is ending, nasty skeptics .. funded by oil companies, what over half of Australia .. come on, do you really believe that?

People who write rants the way geoff does, do more damage to their cause than good - which helps the skeptics no end, it shows that some people, geoff, will say anything, exaggerate greatly, use half truths, weather events .. anything, if they think they can spin their case.

Doesn't work .. people in Australia are fed up with spin and BS. Look at our political world, much the same.

Is geoff a liar, I think he believes what he says, like moonbat, but just wants to let go some anger, which he should do something about.

Geoff:

Thank you for your attempted response.

The question stands: please provide one piece of specific scientifically measured real-world evidence that proves human production of CO2 caused Earth's latest, modest cyclic warming that ended around 1998. See if you can obtain it from the academies.

I've corresponded (two-way) with CSIRO chief executive and with CSIRO Group Executive - Environment. Neither can provide any specific evidence of causation. None.

Did you read The Eco Fraud Part 1 at the link provided? Here it is again: http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Eco-Fraud_1.pdf

Please read Parts 2 and 3 to see the consequences of your advice.
- http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Eco-Fraud_2.pdf
- http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Eco-Fraud_3.pdf

Lack of any data (at UN IPCC, academies, CSIRO, your article) showing human causation, plus UN IPCC fraud in making false claims, plus Nature's own signals show your article is without foundation.

Please show respect for yourself, Nature, the environment, myself, humanity and science by citing specific scientific evidence - preferably in your own words to show you understand the case your making.

If you cannot satisfy yourself with solid data showing causation please stop rattling the empty tin.

(I'm assuming you did try to satisfy yourself on the situation before writing, didn't you?)

When espousing your views in public, please attempt to meet my needs for integrity, respect and responsibility. And my needs for solid scientific data.

Malcolm

:)