Lucifarse

Go to the original link provided by ant. It totally debunks the claims you are making in you silly response.

It clearly says co2 increases after temp increase. It was an authority ant selected.

Lol you blokes clearly are not up to defending your faith. You need to get experts to help you out.

You're so tedious ant; cyclones are decreasing in Australia as even a cursory look at BOM would show:

http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml

I haven't muddied anything and I can't help it if you cannot find the FAR graph [clue Arctic sea ice NOT sheet ice or glaciers].

The Shakum paper you are referring to is junk as I explain at number 7 here:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/new-ten-worst-agw-papers-by-cohenite.html

Keep putting them up ant and we'll keep knocking them down.

Crickey has come out with Part 1 of a dozen climate change deniers.
Plimer was one person discussed in the article of yesterday. Hundreds of schools received copies of his book published in 2011, sent to schools by the insidious IPA. The Federal Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency saw the need to send material to school to correct what Plimer had written.

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climatechange/files/documents/03_2013/prof-plimer-answers.pdf

imajulianutter,your not able to use google? You mentioned in another thread that you were not able to find out anything about John Tyndall
A quote from you prviously … “Cannot find Tyndall but I suspect he'll confirm this.”

This is the reference I provided:

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/clean-tech/item/23757-irish-scientist-john-tyndal

A quote from reference previously provided …”Tyndall's paper identified carbon dioxide and water vapour as key components of the atmosphere which trap radiant heat energy in the Earth's climate systems….”

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/

Here is a quote from the nasa reference above ..."Tyndall's experiments also showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation, and that even in small quantities...."

ant, you are a true believer; you actually believe the planet is going to be ruined by AGW. Nothing would convince you otherwise.

I find your comments about Plimer, a good man, and his book being distributed in schools to be repugnant; and hypocritical given this disgrace:

http://www.andysrant.com/2014/01/academic-imaginary-cagw-should-be-taught-all-students-from-primary-school.html

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/04/Education-reducedportrait-5.pdf

AGW, as all propaganda does, targets children and in various insidious and unethical ways AGW has inculcated children with its deceit and lies.

As part of that you deserve the same opprobrium.

cohenite, you gave a reference by the discredited Goddard, which you then attributed to the IPCC, please provide the reference; though, Goddard’s reference to IPCC doesn’t exist does it?

I'm not sure why you are bringing up cyclones; cohenite, except you seem to be trying to verbal me.
Your original comment was …” How did cyclone Ita go for the alarmists; it was going to be the end of the North QLD coast; how did that go ant?
My response was …”Nobody to my knowledge has made any inferences to Cyclone Ita, it is the cyclone season still.”
Which is a pretty neutral comment, the cyclone season lasts till the end of April.
You then retort later with …”"You're so tedious ant; cyclones are decreasing in Australia as even a cursory look at BOM would show:"

You have to be joking in relation to the reference you gave; political groupings and blogs do not stand up against peer reviewed science.
John Tyndall found a relationship between CO2 and warming 150 years ago, a couple of references have been given above .
To discredit scientific papers you really need to be working in the appropriate field.

Who discredited Goddard? You or one of your ilk? Give me a break; being discredited by AGW advocates is a badge of honour. How can something as phony, false, ridiculous, pompous, arrogant, deceitful and misanthropic as AGW claim any moral high ground at all? The answer of course is it can't.

You keep harping on about Tyndall ant; no one disputes that CO2 is photoluminescent; laboratory tests prove that; but like the models which AGW rely on AGW cannot comprehend that what happens in the computer and the lab simply doesn't happen in reality.

There is a mountain of evidence from the real world which shows CO2 radiation absorbing properties are defeated or vitiated by other atmospheric components and processes which is why the models have grossly failed.

Read this:

http://88.167.97.19/albums/files/TMTisFree/Documents/Climate/Polynomial_Cointegration_Tests_of_the_Anthropogenic_Theory_of_Global_Warming_Nature_Paper091209.pdf

Understand the paper and you'll understand my point about laboratory and model results being contradicted by natural process.