At least CO2 was not mentioned in the article.

Perhaps the author has enough courage to provide a sensible answer to that single unanswered question.

Has AGW – IPCC science measured and assessed photosynthesis-linked warmth in ocean micro and macro algae proliferated by sewage nutrient and land use nutrient pollution?

Surely that question deserves a proper answer.

And some icing for the cake so to speak:
http://www.livescience.com/29589-huge-ocean-blooms-dont-wait-for-spring-study-finds.html

A similar thing happened in NSW a few years ago, Halduel. One of the most dangerous situations for householders in the bush to be in, is to live in a house on the top of a ridgeline. Fires move much faster going uphill than down.

One resident was one of a whole street of houses on top of a ridgeline, and he had an idea. Being a brickie by trade, he erected a brick wall at the bottom of his property which he figured could force the rising heat from the bushfire upwards and over his house. The Greenie Lyn Benders in the local council screamed blue murder and demanded that he remove the brick wall for aesthetic reasons.

The man refused, and the matter went to court. You guessed it, the predicted bushfire erupted while the matter was still in court and every house on the street was destroyed except our brickie mate. The "Daily Telegraph" newspaper reported that fire officials were very interested in how the wall did exactly as planned and protected the house, and they suggested that the brickie's idea should be part of the building code for all new houses in that situation.

One of the reasons why the Greens are so much on the nose at the moment is because the "sheeple" (as Green advocates sneer at ordinary people) are not as stupid as the Lyn Bender clones want to believe. Most people know that the reason why we are having so many high intensity fires is because of Green opposition to burn off's.

The more that the Lyn Bender clones sneer at ordinary people, and the more they endanger the community with their stupid ideas, the less likely anyone will believe anything they say.

"We face annihilation"

This coming from our resident climate psychologist.

The idea that adverse weather or other natural events are caused by man's sin is the oldest superstition. It is amazing that in this day and age it is still current, but then so are all the other religions, so there is no limit to some people's credulity.

All the other arguments of the warmists have been refuted in here over and over and over again, and they have nothing new, no logically coherent argument, just endless harping and comical foolery.

When they actually come up with climate models that can correctly predict the past, let alone the future, will be time for anyone to take them seriously. Failing that, all they have is the corrupt billions that governments have stolen from the world's productive classes to pay for their anti-human doomsday cult. Shills and trolls indeed

Man’s sin?
Religion aside, what about human impact lsuch as man and also woman eating out natural food supply , leading to starvation, unrest and war?
Should people worldwide wait for a data model of past and present before acting on interesting and challenging sensible solutions?

What is a warmist?
Is a person a warmist because they raise subject of warmth these days, such as warmth caused by algae in a stock watering trough or creek gully waterhole?
I do however agree with most of what you say there (above).

You can see my posts on OLO and accordingly I think warmth in ocean algae involves new and coherent anthropogenic weather change logic that no scientist or anyone can refute.

My post above was intended to be directed to: @ Jardine K. Jardine.