Until you show that the warming is caused by human activity, ant, everything you state is irrelevant.

It is hard to believe that you are s stupid as you pretend to be , to avoid the basis of this discussion.

If ever you supply the basis of your support for AGW, then it will be appropriate for you to ask questions. You have provided no science to support your assertion of any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. You have no current status in the discussion other than as an unresponsive humbug.

It is easy to argue against 80(or 800) of your sources, ant, which say that CO2 causes warming. The CO2 content in the atmosphere has increased, while global warming has stopped. You are putting assertions against a reality which shows them to be wrong

Not wishing to rain on anyone's parade, but I have to wonder if climate change is really going to matter much over the longer term, since the use of organochlorides, organophosphates, PCB's and other 'wonder' chemicals in households, industry and agriculture is proving to be so deleterious to human and environmental perseverance that we may well be heading for 'game over' for life as we know it long before any change in climate could herald a similar level of self-destructive potential.

Don't believe me? Take a look at China's production of Dicofol from DDT and current potentially related increasing levels of DDT in the environment, with widespread destructive consequences including wide-ranging impacts on sexuality, sexual reproduction and immune system functioning, as well as on rates of cancer and other serious illnesses and of birth defects and miscarriage.
So many chemicals, and their derivatives, including DDT, are now so common in breast milk as to threaten to overturn, or even reverse, the benefits of breast-feeding.
Breast milk becoming a toxin?
Food supply causing sexual dysfunction?
Try Google.

Sorry about the divergence from the main topic, but so much of the article and commentary content is just so much samo, samo.

I agree, Saltpetre, but I think you should start a new thread rather than naughtily diverting this one.

One poster here must be a computer generation as it's automatic response shows no evidence of having the artificial intelligence to absorb input data provided to it in abundance. Like most computers, I suppose, it's only capable of having information punched into it.

The science is settled, AFAIAC, so I'll butt out and leave the hopeless task of reprogramming 'puters with under-sized chips to others.

Nutrient pollution is not being seen and generally understood as being dangerous and devastating like DDT for example. Yet nutrient pollution from sewage dumped daily is having far more serious socio economic and environment impact than DDT is has had.
Adapt says the IPCC. Adapt to what, adapt to CO2?
CO2 may well be an indicator of warmth occurring in specific areas but that does not show CO2 causing damage?
I think anything preventing whole world ocean seafood/protein from breeding/repopulating will have far more immediate impact than believed impact from CO2 or DDT

Just words are not enough Luci.

Back a few pages here you posted a chart you claim shows AGW sea level rise.
On closer examination from another point of view that chart shows the highest temperature as being exactly where the biggest dead zone in the world is occurring.
That algae plant matter associated dead zone with warmth has apparently not been measured and assessed in AGW science, so how can AGW science be 'settled'?

And you do not reply about that. Processor problem maybe.

Leo wrote “ The CO2 content in the atmosphere has increased, while global warming has stopped.”
Glaciers and sheet ice are disappearing at a huge rate Leo because it is getting colder?
Poirot, gave a reference to a figure showing the “Death Spiral” of the Arctic Sea beginning in 1979.
Submarines and satellites have been used to gain those measurements. Submarines had been used to calibrate the satellite measurements.
A couple of months ago some climate scientists specializing in the Arctic region expressed concern as they predict that an El Nino event will fracture the Arctic ice sheet.
The Arctic region is important as it determines climate elsewhere.

There had been a bump in temperature in 1998, but since that time temperature records have been continually set.

There had been a major El Nino event in 1997-1998, a quote from below site…” The warm water just below the ocean’s surface is on par with that of the biggest El Niño ever recorded, in 1997-98.”

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/04/07/el_nino_2014_2015_forecasts_show_it_could_grow_into_a_monster.html

It is interesting that it is warmth brought to the surface in the Pacific that creates an El Nino event, isn’t it Leo. The Bureau of Meteorology says there is a greater chance than, 70% of an El Nino event; elsewhere a 75% chance, and a 80% has also been predicted by others. A +6 degree C has been noted in the Pacific which was the temperature measured prior to the 1998 event.

Saltpetre, is right there are other matters of concern, the hole in the ozone layer is increasing again through discharge of chemicals similar to CFCs; there was an article in the Guardian about it a few weeks ago.