Carol 3. Obviously the fraud-backing Chris Tourney believed the same nonsense as you, when he foolishly became ice-bound in the Antarctic.

See what happens when you are ignorant, (or fraudulent).

Unstinting expenditure of good old fossil fuel emissions soon had him out of his stupid predicament

Wanna see horror? Read the very short item at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/05/sydney-opera-house-statue-liberty-sea-level-climate-change-unesco?CMP=ema_632 and gasp!
That's what confronts our descendants if we go on denying the soothsaying.

Warm-monger Adam Vaughan has little faith in our credulity.

"There appears to be a strong divide between people who feel it [AGW] is a problem and people who don't," he sighs.

We spoilsports want the evidence.

Trouble about the evidence, we don't have 2000 years to collect it.

Neat, isn't it?

"Australia, one of the world's largest coal exporters, has its share of global warming sceptics and climate change deniers, pursuing the same strategies to obfuscate the issues."

If you don't know that the use of the term 'denier' to describe AGW sceptics is both inaccurate and highly offensive, then you obviously haven't been following the debate, and anything you have to say on it is clearly parroted from somebody else.

If you DO know that the term is highly offensive and chose to use it anyway, that reveals a degree of bias and prejudgement that, once again, calls the reliability of your arguments into question.

So which is it, Ken? Uninformed or deliberately offensive?

@Emperor Julian: "Trouble about the evidence, we don't have 2000 years to collect it."

Sea level is currently rising at a rate of around 3mm per year worldwide, according to Wikipedia. The Sydney Opera House is at a height of around 10.3 metres above sea level, which by my calculations gives us around -- well, as it turns out, you're right. We don't have 2000 years to collect the data. We have 3000 years.

Dear Ken,

For those who nailed their alarmist colors to the mast there is no hope. You can find all the elaborate and devious narratives you like to put yourself right but the more you write the less traction you get.

This article is a complex story, carefully woven around peripheral issues in your attempt to make it more general but it is still an alarmist versus skeptics story.

You need to take your complaints to the IPCC and the UNFCCC. I say this because they are the authoritative body.

Your narrative began to unravel on November 19, 2009 with the climategate emails. All things alarmist have been unraveling ever since. The alarmists have clung desperately to the endless deluge of thought terminating clichés in the hope that the dead cat might bounce.

There is no Kyoto, no emission trading markets, no global renewables industry and no political will to enact the legislation to revive the sustainable utopia. All that is left are the EU centric remnants now drifting back from the battlefield to rejoin the reality of fossil fueled economic growth.

There is no global anything left.

The early adopters of the CAGW scam will go down with the ship. Many will be high profile scientists, academics, politicians and many in the media. Their careers will end and their contributions forgotten, but no forgiven.

This may well be a terrifying prospect however, like so many who have written so much to create and defend CAGW, it will come back to bite you in every conceivable way.

You seem like an educated, intelligent and articulate person, how on earth did you get conned by this?

Formulate an exit plan, have an “each way bet”, jump ship or go down with it!

Hi, 'imajulianutter'...I fear I may dream of religious terrorists and acolytes!
I'm sorry I can't answer your post script as to whether cited data "is[sic]all wrong" or are accurate. As a non-scientist, my comment derived from reading the daily New York Times ( a global 'paper of record'), the odd Science Monthly and, sometimes, Google.
Certainly not the peer-reviewed research you require. It has been oddly confronting to read the the strong negative emotions aroused, for some writers, by this article.