@ Beeny
That "very recent release" by the IPCC you referred to (but have been having difficulty in linking so others here can judge the veracity of your claims) can be found here:

http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

Seems you can’t or don’t know how to link directly to the “genuine science”.

.

@ Jon J
I see you have ignored the planet “squealing” article – head still stuck in the sand?

.

@ individual
Yup, research going good – some can be found here:

http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-All_FINAL.pdf

A weatherman’s "Climate and the Affairs of Men" – anything that floats your boat, eh?

Anyone who thinks Australia’s carbon tax/ETS has something to do with controlling Earth’s temperature is just plain wrong, or stupid – take your pick.

.

@ SPQR
- Minimum 30 years required for statistical significance, Jon J doesn’t get it.

- 30 yrs since satellite measurements began, even Roy Spencer’s graphs get it.

- Ah yes, John Daly’s blog graph finishes in 2000. Ok, got it, thanks.

- You think Central Park in New York City constitutes global warming – right, got it, thanks.

- Randy Mann’s blog? Ok, got that too, thanks.

Anyone who thinks Australia’s carbon tax/ETS has something to do with controlling Earth’s temperature is just plain wrong, or stupid – take your pick.
Bonmot,
Hmmh, What is the Carbon Tax for then ? Just plain revenue for eternal research ?
By all means call me stupid if the Earth's temperature is not linked to climate change ?
btw. your research link doesn't open. Will it open when you've finished researching ?

No ‘individual’, you got it wrong.

>> By all means call me stupid if the Earth's temperature is not linked to climate change? <<

I said: “Anyone who thinks Australia’s carbon tax/ETS has something to do with controlling Earth’s temperature is just plain wrong, or stupid – take your pick.”

>> What is the Carbon Tax for then … Just plain revenue for eternal research? <<

No, it is not. You obviously have not looked at the policy or understood it (you only want to see and hear what you want to see and hear). Granted, the government could do a better job of explaining why we have to transition to an alternative (and cleaner) energy future but quite frankly, I don't think people like you want to know anyway.

Indy, this is not to say there are no issues with the policy (there are). However, sooner or later we have to move towards an alternative (to fossil fuel) energy future – it will be more sustainable in the long run - just look at some other countries and what they are doing. How and when to do it is up for discussion, but not why - that is politics and economics, not science.

Problem is, only a progressive government will think about the future (past the next election cycle) - a conservative government (by their very nature) promotes business as usual.

PS: the link works fine; it’s just a large gutsy and informative PDF file – not a short sharp sound-bite like SPQR’s.

The promotion and practice of immorality, perversion and porn will cause our collapse a lot faster than the imaginery climate change. Many promoting the Green dogmas are happy to preach an outward self righteousness and deny the obvious failings of their own nature. Civilisations collapse once embracing immorality and finally homosexuality as normal, not because they don't believe the failed prophecies of those who are prideful enough to think they can control the weather.

"@ Jon J
I see you have ignored the planet "squealing" article - head still stuck in the sand?"

I'm sorry - when did Time Magazine become a peer reviewed publication?

Seriously, any medium that relies on reader or viewer ratings to set its advertising rates is OBVIOUSLY going to push AGW for all it's worth. Apocalyptic stories sell papers -- and magazines. How many copies do you think Time would sell if they put 'Everything OK, don't worry!' on the cover?

You'll have to do much better than that to have any credibility with me.

Jon J, this is perhaps the critical question that climate change sceptics need to answer, as I asked you previously:

Whether or not climate change is real, shouldn’t we be taking pretty much the same sort of approach to planning for our future anyway, by way of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels and developing renewable energy sources?