Are you a scientist voxUnius? If not, your comment "fluffy conjecture" is quite offensive.
This site is pretty well up to date in relation to carbon dioxide and has provided some other references.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

Something very interesting is a trend in El Nino, it has been trending up since it was identified. El Nino is expected to occur towards the end of this year, or next year as it runs cyclically every four or five years. El Nino is associated with drought and heat. The point is that like the level of carbon dioxide has continued to climb, El Nino has been having a greater impact as time has gone on. El Nino is about up welling of warm water in the Pacific Ocean; oceans take up warmth. Oceans also pick up carbon dioxide, the question is why is El Nino impacting more now than when first identified? El Nino creates its own feedback system, commonsense suggests that the water being pushed by wind is now warmer than in the past; hence, the impact of El Nino is becoming greater.
This is the kind of material that Anthony Watts provides, I gather he is funded by Heartlands:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/svensmark-global-warming-stopped-and-a-cooling-is-beginning-enjoy-global-warming-while-it-lasts/

An interesting proposition since glaciers, and ice sheets are melting.
There was a very recent event on Greenland where a large slab of ice collapsed off the Greenland ice cape allowing an "ice stream" to begin running.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/03/14/study-ice-sheet-destabilizing-threatening-greater-sea-level-rise

http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/02/03/greenlands-fastest-glacier-sets-new-speed-record/

Its fair to say cooling as stated by Watts is not happening.
Watts has also been caught out when stating that some weather stations in the USA were not measuring temperatures correctly. The stations Watts identified were checked against the remaining stations and pretty well identical results were obtained. Watts had made quite a fuss about this matter and was caught out.

Message to the Senate. Anybody listening?

The Senate should try it's hand at finding the answer to whether or not AGW or Kyoto or IPCC science has measured and assessed photosynthesis-linked warmth in ocean algae plant proliferated by unprecedented sewage nutrient overload pollution discharged daily.

The Senate should find if AGW-CO2 science is settled or not.

If the science is not complete and settled then all associated carbon cost should be suspended and moneys paid to date, repaid.

JF Aus, photosynthesis is energy absorbing and CO2 consuming, so how does your algal hypothesis account for AGW?

Further, your pet hypothesis needs some data behind it. Do you have any?

Can you convince anybody with funding clout of your claim? Perhaps contact Greg Hunt, who would only too gladly get the emissions issue off his desk with any excuse he could. Imagine, Australian scientists demolishing human CO2 emissions as the reason for AGW, with Direct Action funding, and starting right here on OLO!

Deniers can debate till the cows come home in relation to climate change; but, it is actually happening in Polar regions:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140316152955.htm

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/fears-of-faster-rising-global-sea-levels-as-stable-greenland-ice-sheet-starts-to-melt-9195769.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-17/global-warming-melts-greenland-ice-sheet/5324848

The SMH also had a similar article, my bet is that there has been no coverage in Murdoch press.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/global-warming-melts-edge-of-greenland-icesheet-20140317-hvjgs.html

Where the Greenland ice sheet had been stable in the past; a large chunk has shorn off allowing an "ice stream" to do more damage.

Science Daily says "The last remaining stable portion of the Greenland ice sheet is stable no more, an international team of scientists has discovered. The finding will likely boost estimates of expected global sea level rise in the future. The new result focuses on ice loss due to a major retreat of an outlet glacier connected to a long "river" of ice -- known as an ice stream -- that drains ice from the interior of the ice sheet." There are a number of references to this event having occurred. Ice sheets melting in the Artic region have no bearing in relation to changing sea levels; however, this is not the case when ice is shorn off a land mass.

It has been known that glaciers have been retreating for a number of years. Interestingly, a number of sites have indicated that the speed of change has not been predicted by computer models. That has been a common criticism of many climate scientists working in Polar areas about computer models. That is, computer models are not displaying the speed of change.

Combine unstable ice in the Arctic, and the prospect of an El Nino event; there have been a number of predictions in relation to an El Nino event ranging from a 50% chance to 75% chance. It does not bode well for later in the year and early 2015 should those predictions prove to be accurate.

http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/monster-el-nino-emerging-from-the-depths-nose-of-massive-kelvin-wave-breaks-surface-in-eastern-pacific/

Ant. Regarding Tuvalu, Bolt is meticulous in his facts
The video to which you refer us is the one made by the lying greens who ripped out the old tree which evidenced that there has been no sea level rise at Tuvalu for at least 50 years.

The video contains no material showing sea level rise. One of the faces in the video looks very much like Ian Fry, from Queanbeyan, who deceitfully posed as a Tuvalu citizen and wept on the table at the Copenhagen fraud backers lie fest for “my country”.

This merely serves as a further example of your complete lack of comprehension of science Remember when asked for a scientific basis for AGW, you referred us to a site which made a baseless assumption that human emissions have an effect on climate. You were not asked to refer us to baseless assertions of AGW, but to science which could justify the assertion. You are 100% failure on this.

The sea level at Tuvalu had fallen at the time this video was made.

“The island's scientists admitted they were surprised and "a little embarrassed" by the change, which they blame on unusual weather conditions caused by El Nino in 1997.”

http://tmgnow.com/repository/global/sea_level.html

"The sea level at Tuvalu had fallen at the time this video was made."
Leo that's an admittance that flooding had happened. Your reply in relation to Tuvalu is quite breath taking; its like saying 1+1=3.

In an earlier post I mentioned how unprecedented ice melt has been occurring in Greenland; that will cause an increase in water levels; as the ice is melting off land.
An El Nino event is very likely to occur at the end of this year; not a happy situation for Tuvalu.

In relation to Greenland, you would at least have to agree Leo that warmth and water melts ice.

A quote from your The Telegraph reference Leo.. "However, scientists both on and off the island believe such concerns will be short term because the sea level falls are coming to an end and the oceans will soon resume their inexorable rise."

The Murdoch press is not reliable as indicted with the Andrew Bolt example. If you are going to show that there has been a lessening of sea water rise you need to go to scientific references, Leo.