When the insults start to be hurled out it a clear indication that the deniers are not able to answer questions asked about what is actually happening. Fire away fellas, anybody reading your posts will realize you are not able to come close to answering questions I have asked earlier about what is really happening. The last resort of deniers is to abuse to try and maintain their conspiracy theory; but it is possible for most to see through that strategy.

When tourist brochures are agreeing that climate change is happening then it becomes a bit hard to say nothing is happening. What is your take on the matter, imajulianutter?
Earlier imajuliannutter you wrote about not being able to find anything about Tyndall; not surprising really, as he found the relationship between CO2, sunlight and warming 150 years ago.
Some misrepresentation going on as well in relation to Dr Shakun, it had been his team that had assessed 80 studies that show a relationship between CO2 and warming. I believe in what science is saying rather than conspiracy theories that defy logic posited by deniers; especially when climate change is happening.
Climate change is an inconvenient truth for fossil fuel mining companies.

cohenite, sought to muddy the waters by bringing up cyclone Ita, then imajulianutter, raises it again in a later post. It is the cyclone season. But, it demonstrates the technique of obfuscation.

The humdinger is providing a graph by Goddard, when challenged about it was attributed to the IPCC FAR (1990) by cohenite.
I did check chapter 9 which discusses glaciers and ice sheets, but it does not show the graph that Goddard is meant to have gained from there. Perhaps it might be elsewhere in the IPCC FAR report. Perhaps you can find it for us cohenite. But it defies logic as it has taken 35 years to reach the stage where the ice sheet is now; very old ice has been expelled since 1979, it would not have been in existence if 1974 had been a record low year.

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_09.pdf

ant

you started calling me a 'denier'. Mate I've never denier climate change or the holocaust. Like to apologise for your passive aggressive nasty inferences?

'You are not able to find any real references that knock what I have written,...'

Are you not aware of the post where I pointed out your authoritative link totally debunked AGW or were you just lying to avoid confronting your beliefs?

pathetic ant

CO2 sceptics, AGW sceptics, global warming sceptics, climate sceptics, sea level sceptics and sceptics about just about everything, are all different.

When discussion occurs such as on this thread, comment seems to become general. Generalizing I think is confusing the discussion.
Maybe it's best to explain this way.

A few pages back there was comment about Tuvalu sea level running into houses. In context that sounds like AGW is the cause, but when you think beyond that house flooding and think specifically, for example about where the extra/higher water came from, it becomes obvious something is incorrect with AGW "settled" science.

AGW science declares sea level rise is occurring due to polar and glacial ice melting more than usual, but how does that melted water reach and rise only at Tuvalu? Why is equivalent sea level rise not being seen and measured at Tasmania and elsewhere globally?

I think there is need to at least keep an open mind at this stage and also suspend all costs associated with AGW, albeit incomplete AGW science.

A number of possible causes of sea level rise at Tuvalu are not even included in AGW science and debate.
There is now less coral rubble in the SW Pacific because living coral that generates rubble is mostly now all dead, generally, I see it with my own eyes wherever I go in the SW Pacific.

I also see that surging ocean waves can now reach further inshore with more strength because a majority of reef surface is now relatively smooth because jagged live coral is now dead and often covered with slippery algae, less drag on the water.

Plus, huge areas of SW Pacific seabed have sunk down due to tectonic plate activity but this is also not included in news and debate about sea water inundation at islands in the SW Pacific.

There is need for truth. Adaption and mitigation are useless words if the real cause is not being seen.

Something for JF http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_secret_of_sea_level_rise_it_will_vary_greatly_by_region/2255/

IMJ, if you do look at a link it must be a quick skim to pull out only the words you find useful to mount your prejudice.

For example,re ONE of the FIVE points you made in your post above, where you pulled out "..., but no one has been able to prove that CO2 caused the warming." it follows on to say "But, by analysing data gathered from 80 locations around the world, Jeremy Shakun, a palaeoclimatologist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and his colleagues have shown that at the global level, warming followed CO2 increases." Then you go on to demand from ant "give me those other 75 of the 80 links" so you can deal with them one by one! What 80 links?

IMJ, I could go on to your points TWO, THREE etc. but I won't waste the keystrokes on someone who can't understand a post let alone a scientific article. I stand by my comment regarding your uninformed opinion and wonder how you went at http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/1209/Are-you-scientifically-literate-Take-our-quiz/Composing-about-78-percent-of-the-air-at-sea-level-what-is-the-most-common-gas-in-the-Earth-s-atmosphere

You should stick to the political and current affairs topics where uninformed opinion is spouted daily and prejudice has at home.

imajulianutter, says I don’t have any brains; all I’m doing is using the science that thousands of scientists are presenting; on that basis imajulianutter is suggesting that he knows more than those thousands of scientists.
iImajulianutter, suggests that it is just climate variability that is causing the ice sheets in the Arctic and various glaciers in different parts of the planet to be melting. It is just a bald statement that climate variability is happening with no explanation. Where is the evidence for such a statement?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us.htm

The United States Environmental Protection Agency, answers some questions in relation to climate change

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/facts.html


I placed this in Google, “proof that climate change is not happening.” Some of the responses, some coming from; more news for proof that climate change is not happening

http://www.salon.com/2014/03/25/10853_out_of_10855_scientists_agree_man_made_global_warming_is_happening/
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-statistical-probability-that-climate-change-is-natural-is-01-percent
http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/353985/scitech/science/global-warming-has-not-stood-still-greenhouses-gases-at-record-high-wmo-chief
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/04/01/daily-mail-telegraph-climate-change_n_5067817.html
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/03/climate_change_really_is_happe.html
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303663604579498721229249160?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303663604579498721229249160.html
http://gothamist.com/2014/04/14/elizabeth_kolbert_climate.php#.
http://gothamist.com/2014/04/14/elizabeth_kolbert_climate.php#.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/issues/climate-change/science/climate-change-basics/climate-change-deniers/

Where it has been stated that climate change is not happening the matters have been dealt with some time ago.

Note carefully what was placed in Google.

Perhaps, iamajulianutter might like to suggest when the last time in the planets history there was CO2 levels of 400+ ppm ( just lately there was a reading of 405ppm).
It’s about time that imajulianutter, Leo, and cohenite brought out some real evidence that climate change is not happening

Have to correct you here, ant, before you're jumped on, where you say, "Perhaps, iamajulianutter might like to suggest when the last time in the planets history there was CO2 levels of 400+ ppm ( just lately there was a reading of 405ppm)."

Perhaps you mean in "human" history. 500 million years ago ten times the current levels existed.

See the Marcott graph for the human history record.