The one degree C increase in ocean temp; is enough for polar ice melt, and for the sea to give up its carbon stores.

Radical ratbag greenies, & academics who suck at the fools teat, if you like Poirot.

No one who has read any of the climate gate E mails, particularly the latest lot could possibly believe the IPCC, & the East Anglia lot are genuine. It is not conjecture, but from their own key boards that they are proven contriving liars. I think most of them did believe, & some of them still probably do, or at least want to believe, but they have no proof, & use every trick in the book to keep the thing going.

Much like most lefties, the end justifies the means. Once you can't prove your point, any cheating will do.

Then if you keep up with even some of the new peer reviewed literature, the truth becomes obvious.

There are a hell of a lot of us who simply believed what we were told, until some little thing started us asking questions.

If you think a woman scorned is likely to get nasty, she has nothing on a graduate who discovers his trusted school has been taking him for a fool for some years, & just like our disgust with Julia, we are now after those lying academics, & be assured, we will get them in their own tangled web of lies.

NASA has the only reputable climate change site, all others are only make believe. And there are others that make conspiracies an art form.

No
No
Yes

"Co2 as a greenhouse gas is not in dispute."

But the extent of its greenhouse effect most certainly is in dispute.

"I think it's time alchemy made a comeback. Apparently mercury will disappear if you heat it up a bit more."

How about some constructive comments instead of the usual snark?

Mercury is no doubt the most persistent of the real pollutants of coal and gas energy sources. However the higher temperature of the Ultra-Supercritical [USC] furnaces reduces the mercury gas droplet size which can assist oxidisation and capture in pure form. The ideal temperature for this process of mercury removal is about 1000C which is still in excess of the 600C which the current USC plants operate at; but there are plans to increase that temperature in future plants.

579 - NASA the only reputable web site.. total nonsense.. you can't have been that out of the debate. The NASA site is the one most likely to exaggerate but Hadley is the most used.. the AGW-crowd hate the satellite sites, although the results are audited, because it doesn't show what they want.
The bit about carbon concentrations being the highest in 600k years or whatever is also hotly disputed. Look up the stuff on isotopic measuresments and ask if anyone has estimated the propotion of industrial to natural CO2 (not the trend but the actual, current mix). You'll be horrified.

Geoff of Perth

so glad you mentioned 'Merchants of Doubt' by Naomia Oreskes and Erik Conway.

As has been pointed out numerous times now, Oreskes has confused the fight over tobacco with the fight over climate without realising the vast difference between the two.. the tobacco companies were contesting findings that the discretionary good they produced was addictive and harmful.. they had to get involved..

energy companies have not contested the debate because they don't need to. There is no indication that any of ratings about CO2 will even reduce the rate of growth in the market, let alone the market itself.. renewables are largely ineffective.. and energy is hardly a discretionary good.

Every now and then activists will point to the tiny amounts that energy companies give to conservative think tanks ($100,000 here, $200,000) and try to claim its driect funding for sceintific research. It is not. In fact, it is difficult to identify any direct involvement by energy companies in climate research.. All of the money goes to the AGW side. Thus while Oreskes may have a point in big tobacco being involved in research, for all I know, her thesis is provably completely wrong when applied to climate.