Climate change or not. What does it matter if we can't do a damn thing about it ?
Those of you who keep bleating this subject are the least to curb your excesses.
You're just wasting good OLO time & space.

Supporters of the AGW fraud are either ignorant or dishonest. In the case of the nonsense about 2013 being Australia’s hottest year our author may have simply believed a fraud backing liar.

The” hottest year” yet in Australia was asserted to be 2013, by David Jones of the Bureau of Meteorology. The temperature upon which he relied was taken at Moomba, South Australia, where the temperature record commenced in 1995.
The temperature record kept at Bathurst since 1858 showed that 1939 was a hotter year than 2013.

Jones has previously shown his support for the AGW fraud, so this effort is no surprise.
It is reminiscent of Hansen, the highly qualified activist, and his dishonest support of AGW.

In his desperation to show global warming, he tampered with the temperature record for a number of years, using his position at NASA, before being forced to succumb to the truth, that 1934 was America’s hottest year, and hence the supporters of the AGW fraud are not supported by any facts, but by computer modelling now shown to bear no relation to reality.

The Maldives have not been inundated, there have only been predictions by fraud backers that they will be. Such predictions never become reality, just as lies by the crooked railway engineer who runs the IPCC never become true.

There is no science to support the AGW assertion, which is why fraud backers rely on the ludicrous statement of the IPCC that it is "94% Certain"

The melted Arctic ice always comes back, and the Antarctic ice did not melt, as has just been demonstrated by the fraud backers from University of NSW, who were stuck in the Antarctic ice which they asserted had been melted by AGW.

We are fortunate to have an educated PM who knows that AGW is crap, and are rid of the clown who signed the flawed Kyoto protocol.
Australia is well placed to deal with climate change.

Nutter
Well actually it easy to prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that greenhouse gases increase the surface temperature.

The fact are we can measure the temperature of any object by analyzing the light or radiation it emits. Everybody is aware that a hot object glows red and the hotter it gets the whiter it glows. Now we can measure the temperature of the earth near the surface either by measuring the radiation emitted there or directly with a thermometer. The result is close enough to 15 deg C but if we measure the Earth's temperature from space by radiation the result is -18 deg c. now this means something in the atmosphere is trapping enough heat in the atmosphere to raise surface temperatures by 33 deg C. We know that oxygen and nitrogen do not absorb radiation from the surface so that leaves us with water vapour co2 and methane as the main culprits.

'There are thousands of articles written supporting the claim warming is caused by human activity.

Can you cite one among all those that has actually proved the link ... '

Warmair

You answered a different question and one I did not ask.

The question you answered was: Is CO2 a greenhouse gas and how does it increase temperatures?

Try again. Just prove the link between human activity and warming.
Quite simple really.

Sufficient will be, just one peer-reviewed paper from among all those thousands supporting the opinion 'that the currently observed nature of climate change is in fact human induced.' I don't want to see another opinion. I just want to see proof of the link.

@James O'Neill -- James, if you want your contributions to the climate change debate taken seriously, your first step is to get on to Google, find out where the '97%' figure you quote came from, and understand why anyone citing that in a discussion merely exposes their complete ignorance of the real issues. Do that for a few more of the 'facts' that you have absorbed from the alarmist establishment, and you will be in a position to make up your own mind on the topic. Till then, you are simply acting as a mouthpiece for propagandists.

Crikey. Candide says no silly language or insults; sure, I present the facts and I get insulted but when I have some fun that's bad; holy double standards. Anyway thanks for the advice; ditto to Ozzy.

Warmie gives a little lecture on the Photoluminescence of CO2. However warmie ignores saturation and log effect of CO2 which means any capacity of CO2 to 'warm' has largely been exhausted.

Warmie also ignores 2 other properties of CO2; firstly at Earth temperatures the radiation leaving the surface is not absorbed by CO2 but by water; a simple Modtran analysis shows that when water is present CO2 does not absorb ANY radiation leaving the surface; CO2 only absorbs when there is no water:

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Caryl_11.png

As the graph shows CO2 only absorbs radiation when humidity is less than 1%.

The second point is that measures of radiation leaving the Earth, OLR, should be decreasing if the extra CO2 was causing AGW. That is not the case; NOAA satellite measurements for 30 years show OLR is increasing!

I can't believe anyone is still regurgitating the 97% consensus figure but here's James O'Neill doing just that. The 97% comes from the Cook paper which is arguably the worst paper ever. Cook selected 11944 Abstracts from papers on climate and discarded 8048 papers or 67.4% because they had no position about AGW. Of the remaining 4014 papers or 32.6% of papers, 3973 or 99% of the remaining abstracts fell into categories 2 and 3. Only 41 or 1% expressed support for Cook's definition of the consensus that:

"Humans are causing global warming."

That’s 1% not 97%.

I can't believe the obdurate gullibility of AGW believers.