'Prince Charles clearly targeted all such sophistry in February 2014, when he praised the finalists for the Young Sustainability Entrepreneur Prize, and criticized the deniers of human-made climate change as a 'headless chicken brigade'

absolutely amazing how those who are personally moral bereft then embrace the Greens religion.

Carol3. The fraud backing New York Times had an Environmental Desk, devoted to Climate Fraud, but it closed this desk when it realised the contempt in which the fraud of AGW was held.

The Climategate emails exposed the criminality of the climate scientists, and despite the fraudulent “Enquiries” that purported to “clear” them, a large proportion of the public is aware of the fraud.

Why do you find airing of the truth to be negative?. I find the responses denigrating fraud to be quite positive. It is the fraud backing article I find negative and offensive.

There is absolutely no doubt that the take up of carbon dioxide in oceans happens; the result is acidification. Its pure chemistry, acidification of oceans is not something we were aware of 30 years ago. There is no escaping the fact that the burning of fossil fuels creates more carbon dioxide than was occurring in the pre-industrial period.
Carbon dioxide being taken up by oceans is part of the climate change cycle; as is, the take up of warmth.
In relation to sheet ice in the Arctic area, it has been stated that there was more of a coverage in 2013 than in 2012; therefore, melting of the ice sheet was not happening. What was not stated by deniers is that the sheet ice in 2013 was quite thin, evidenced by a blue tinge shown in satellite photos; and also huge fissures were visible in the ice sheet. These fissures had not been seen before.
Apart from these factors methane is being voided at alarming rates from the Arctic region a phenomena I gather that had only begun to be particularly noticed 2005-6 but in vastly smaller volumes.
What I have mentioned here are absolute facts, not speculation, nothing drawn from computer models. Nothing to do with any political agendas; as some deniers suggest.

Some misinformation comes to us through either misinterpretation by the media or distortion.

http://www.mediander.com/connects/36786/little-ice-age/?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=content&utm_campaign=TabClick#!/37053/maunder-minimum/video

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-antarctic-magazine/2011-2015/issue-25-december-2013/science/speeding-towards-an-acid-ocean

Carol83
May your dreams be interesting.

So you cannot supply peer reviewed literature. That makes the claim not easily researched. Otherwise you would have done so.

Heating in Arctic area, the last reference is by the Royal Soceity:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/13/3280421/arctic-autumn-staggering-warming/

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n6/full/ngeo1480.html

http://arctic-news.blogspot.com.au/p/runaway-warming.html

http://methane-hydrates.blogspot.com.au/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/04/3357501/warm-winter-iditarod-minefield-snow/

http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-12-12/thawing-ocean-floor-pours-methane-atmosphere-and-its-only-getting-worse

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf

Page 14 of the Royal Society shows how there has been a 40% reduction in ice sheet by 2012.
Quote in relation to methane from RC peer reviewed document:

" As another example, Arctic warming could destabilise methane (a greenhouse gas) trapped in ocean sediments and permafrost,
potentially leading to a rapid release of a large amount of methane. If such a rapid release occurred, then
major, fast climate changes would ensue.
Such high-risk changes are considered unlikely in this century, but are by definition hard to predict"

Measurements of methane being taken at present are not healthy.

Hi ant,

Would this by any chance be the same “Royal Society”?

“The Royal Society [of Britain], a venerable institution with more than 300 years on its back, has been served with a scientific challenge from independent scientists. The dispute is about the society’s continued refusal to even acknowledge, much less discuss, evidence to the contrary of their stance on carbon dioxide as THE “climate change” villain and the amounts and rates involved in the carbon cycle in various compartments of the Earth’s ecosphere. The society has now been challenged in a paper, The Carbon Cycle and Royal Society Math by Dr Klaus L.E. Kaiser. “

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-KAISER-Carbon_Cycle_and_RS_Math.pdf