"Lets not say non existent climate change."

Lets not say non existent NATURAL climate change.

"Get your information from one site NASA. They are real scientist's, with the gear to measure and see.
Get on solar and save a fortune."

I didn't think it was possible to pack so much egregious nonsense in a few short sentences; but well done, you have.

>> Lets not say non existent NATURAL climate change <<

Umm, er, pardon?

Cohenite ... nobody is.

It's obvious why you want to make out that they are, though.

As a 'wannabe' lawyer and pretend climatologist, your use of double negatives is, shall we say, "well done".

And who the frig is "Luke"? What has he got to do with the price of apples here?

Oh, I get it ... you not only want to change the goal posts - you want to change the playing field too.

Typical stuck-in-the-mud ideologue "denialist".

That would be your 4th post bonny; so tough titties. Luke is like you only better educated and more fun; but his default position is the same as yours; Real Climate or Cook or Demesmog, although his insults are wittier and less petulant.

I think you really believe the world is going to end through AGW, don't you? If it wasn't so damaging and destructive it would be sad really; it's like a mass hysteria based on a virulent personal pathology; the world is going to end if we keep burning coal.

But that's enough; you're not worth any more attention; unless you can muster some analysis and interesting commentary you can crawl back into your little paranoiac world.

I understand that the hypothesis propounded by the pro AGW adherents to be along the lines that 'co2 (both 'natural' and man made) is a sygnificant driver of the globes climate system'
Ergo; increased levels of atmospheric co2, from whatever source, results in increased global average temperatures (fingerprinted in the upper troposphere over the equator)

Where it found, however, based on ice core (oxygen isotope measurements) and numerous alternative proxy data sets, excluding bristlecone pine rings, that the relationship between temperature and atmospheric co2 volumes were roughly synchronous, then the hypothesis above would be supported.

However, where a disparity of approx 800 years found, wherein temperature preceded co2 levels, then the hypothesis could be falsified.

Invoking the 'precautinary principal' in the face of data spanning 10s of thousands of years of temperatures proceeding co2 levels, claiming that 'it could be different this time', would seem to be a misuse of the principle.

The 1 degree C the ocean temp; has risen is undercutting arctic and antarctic ice.
CO2 at an all time high.
Oceans giving up co2.
Weather patterns in disarray.
NASA says long term climate change is in process.
How can anyone say, it's not true or doesn't exist.