LEGO,

Yeah thanks for that.

So your research nous and scientific qualifications, expertise and judgment rests on your opinion that you possess something called a "bullsheet antennae".

Most heartening indeed!

LEGO,

Here's where you might begin to educate yourself rather than flying by dodgy antennae.
http://forecast.uchicago.edu/lectures.html

Natural variability can not possibly account for the extreme global warming since 1970, especially. Mann's Hockey-Stick is apparent when you look at this time period over longer contexts.

I'm betting on the coupling between CO2 and temperature we have evidence of, for at least the last 800,000 years, to continue. You are either betting it won't, or you don't care.

If you're betting it won't, what's your basis? Where's the smoking gun? Here's one of the lectures http://www.kaltura.com/tiny/k8j3u going to some of that. It's your responsibility to provide an alternative model that matches the temperature record if you eschew the CO2/AGW hypothesis.

If, OTOH, perhaps you't care, like our government. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/coalition-turns-back-on-un-climate-summit-20131107-2x2ur.html

Dear Luciferace, I don't debate against links. I don't even click on them, because I was once invited to click on a link and I got the worst virus I have ever had, so bad that my computer shop recommended that I retire that computer. And yes, the I am sure that the person who invited me to click on the link set me up.

Dear Poirot. Oh, I get it, you are a scientist so you can comment on man made global warming while us cretinous suburbanites may not. You have lost the plot again. Your problem is, that you can not convince the public that your fave little cause is valid, and unless you can debate at a level that the public can relate to, then you might as well piiss up a rope.

What is it with you trendy lefties that you are always convinced that the world is going to end? No wonder all of the stupid cults always try to recruit in universities. They know that while people in your educated caste have high academic intelligence, at the street level you are so naïve and lacking in street smarts that you should not be let out on the streets without a white cane.

Stick to books or bury your head then, LEGO, but if you're betting the coupling between CO2 concentration and surface air temperature won't continue, what's your basis? Where's the smoking gun?

LEGO,

"Dear Poirot. Oh, I get it, you are a scientist so you can comment on man made global warming while us cretinous suburbanites may not. You have lost the plot again. Your problem is, that you can not convince the public that your fave little cause is valid, and unless you can debate at a level that the public can relate to, then you might as well piiss up a rope."

I'm not a scientist...... (but flattered that you think so)

I'm a suburbanite - who just happens to trust people who are trained, who work and have expertise in the areas associated with climate.

Just like if we were discussing medical science, I would have confidence in scientists who are trained, who work and have expertise in areas associated with biology and medicine.

For some reason scientists who deal with climate are singled out for abuse, ridicule and accusations of fraud and conspiracy.

It's because their findings have the capacity to alter the economic/political status quo.

That's why right wing think tanks like Heartland fund denial and junk science and target them...taking advantage of people like you to blow their trumpets for them.

Luciferase what extreme warming? Do you mean like the Medieval Warm Period, current temperatures are yet to reach?

Poirot, I'll make one last try.

You suggest you trust medical science. Well apart from a couple of glaring instances, so you should. Medical research is published with full disclosure of the research, & can thus be duplicated by anyone who cares to do so.

Products go through double blind testing, fully documented, & repeatable.

Climate science is exactly the opposite to this. Researchers refuse to give the details of their research, expecting the world to take their word it is correct.

Remember "hide the decline"? Where a totally false set of figures were spliced into a graph, when the true figures produced a result showing cooling.

Remember how our "trust me" scientists formed a cheer squad for this cleaver "trick".

Remember the cheer squad discussing by email, the necessity of "getting rid of" the Medieval Warm Period.

Surely you have seen the continual "adjustment/corrections" to the temperature record of so many areas. Like the 2 degree upward adjustment to Darwin temperature. Have you ever seen or heard any justification of these "corrections"?

Of course you haven't, you have to take it on "TRUST".

You must be aware that a doubling of CO2 could produce at an extreme maximum a 0.9C temperature increase. To get the catastrophic in there you have to assume an extreme positive feed back from things like clouds. All those models currently failing do just this, although most recent research suggests clouds give a negative feedback.

There is too much smoke for there to be no fire. If you want the math it is available. If you want a serious discussion, it is also available.

If not we can assume you are just another lefty trying to use a fraud to cover another objective. Do tell us which.