Good posts RPG, but I'm afraid you are wasting your time.

These people are far too immature & too brainwashed as well to even understand what they are reading.

I suppose they have a vested interested, there can't be much else that would close the mind as much as these are closed.

Curmudgeon,

The Russian academy of sciences is not in the deny camp as far as I can tell. See G8+5 Academies’ joint statement: Climate change and the transformation of energy technologies for a low carbon future: http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf

Your argument appears to be a scientific one but every reputable scientific institution disagrees with you. That begs some obvious questions ...... and obvious conclusions.

As a sideline it would be amazing if the year in year out pump of 30 billion tons of man made CO2 (a known greenhouse gas) into the atmosphere didn't have an effect.

I have noticed on this forum that the contributions from some others have degenerated into little more than bad tempered rants. Others that have studied this phenomenon in similar human predicaments (for example just before the start of world war 2) have observed that arguments do become more shrill as there is more and more evidence to deny. Only once decisive action is underway do the arguments fall away to nothing. No one knows when this stage of decisive action will occur (some like Paul Gilding predict within the next 10 years) but it is only a question of time.

Wobbles, what is an established scientific fact, is that climate follows the same cycles that it followed before human emissions became a factor. Human emissions have made no measureable difference to climate.

AGW, or the assertion that human emissions have any significance in climate is not an established fact.

When scientific backing for this non established “fact” is requested from any of the warmeciles they all talk about something else.

Sarniaan cannot be so obtuse that he does not realise that the Goebells method is the one being used by the backers of the AGW myth.

Produce the science which shows any significant effect by human emissions, and you will have a basis for what you are saying, otherwise it is just nonsense.

Rich2 may be a little less laughable than, say, Kenny or sarnian, but all of their statements have no scientific basis.

Read the Climategate emails if you wish to see how desperate the AGW backers are. These are the IPCC scientists who came up with the "95% certainty" gimmick, because they have no science to establish it.

The dishonesty alone should convince you. Compare Chris’ concise summing up of the situation with the lengthy articles we have had here seeking to justify the alarmist’s nonsense, by talking in circles, about anything but the science itself.

Come up with a scientific basis Rich2, until then, we know you are asserting baseless nonsense.

Just out of interest, all of you denialists heap abuse on all scientists who are doing scientific research into climate change/global warming even though they are using scientific methods and equipment that the layman has no comprehension of.
Now there are also scientists who are doing research into medicine, physics, nuclear energy and so on, do you believe that they are also charlatans and involved in a world wide conspiracy to defraud just about everybody?

Leo Lane,

Claiming that there is no science behind AGW is the exact opposite of the truth. Start here http://www.skepticalscience.com/ and just follow the links through to the scientific papers, or http://www.ipcc.ch/ and follow the links through to the reports they have produced.

In a bizarre way you have illustrated the point that AGW is all about science. It is not about opinion or personal preference or ideology it is about science - the laws of physics and what happens to the climate when you add CO2 into the atmosphere. No heartfelt statements of belief will impact the laws of physics. If you think the facts are anti right wing and pro Greenies hard luck - they are what they are - and while public opinion can be swayed by the likes of Alan Jones the laws of physics are unaltered.

By contrast how to best reduce CO2 emissions is not about science. That is an area climate scientists and national science academies avoid and leave to the politicians. Here everyone is entitled to their own opinion (whereas you are not entitled to your own version of the facts) and ideological backgrounds will normally drive a persons view of the best way of going about it, though bizarrely in Australia we have a labour government promoting a pro market method and a conservative right wing opposition promoting government intervention.

On the Climategate emails I have pointed out multiple times on this forum that a number of independent reviews took place and concluded the basic science is unimpacted. Here is a link again http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=climategate&x=0&y=0.

Rich2, there have been no independent reviews on the Climategate emails, which should have the proper process of a Royal Commission. There have been so called "enquiries" by parties committed to the alarmist cause pretending to “clear” the miscreants.

As I pointed out earlier, putting up a site run by one of the worst of the Climategate miscreants as a scientific reference just shows how bereft of science your threadbare AGW myth is. Skeptical Science is not a scientific site. It is run by the mendacious Michael Mann who tried to put over the notorious Hockey Stick nonsense.

Common sense, if you are prepared to relinquish your opposition to it, tells you that if there were any science to back the AGW assertion the IPCC would not be hiding behind the pathetic assertion that there is a “95% certainty” of AGW. There is either science or there is not. A guess assessed by the guesser to be 95% likely to be right is not science. It is a fact that predictions by the IPCC are 100% wrong when cught up with by passing of time and reality.

There is no measureable effect on climate from human emissions.

That is the science, Rich2, however you and weasel worders like Mann try to get around it.

You have no credibility. I gave a short description of the science upon which I rely. You are cornered, because there is no science to back your unsustainable statements, and you seek to send us on a wild goose chase through the miscreant’s sites who seek to inflict diversions on us, from the fact that they have no scientific base.

No matter how you seek to divert from the basic question, the fact is that you have no science to back what you say.