Not all his postings have been devoid of truth, Leo

the following link provided by ant actually told the truth. it states clearly warming preceded co2 increases.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/bas_research/science_briefings/icecorebriefing.php

Even though he posted it as an authority on climate change he now chokes on it's truths and has been frantic to bury it under claims made in an avalanche of links. I haven't the time to read them all, nobody has, and I suspect, on the evidence of his damming recent citations, neither has ant.

He really has shown the intellect of an insect.

Treasurer Hockey should be increasing the budget for science in order to carry out complete science that includes ocean plant matter in climate science.

Complete science should include due diligence assessment of all matters raised at this link:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/ocean-bloom.html

If relevant real science is not carried out there will be numerous ongoing and worsening social and economic consequences for Australia.

I decided to check all five links ant posted.

ONE:
http://www.nature.com/news/how-carbon-dioxide-melted-the-world-1.10393

'..., but no one has been able to prove that CO2 caused the warming.'

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

'Ita is one of the latest-forming Category 5 storms in Australian history,'

THREE:
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

'... the sea ice decline, but the direct cause is a complicated combination of factors resulting from the warming, and from climate variability'

FOUR AND FIVE:
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Latest-News-Wires/2012/0921/While-Arctic-melts-Antarctic-ice-hits-record.-Is-warming-debunked

http://www.greenland.com/en/about-greenland/natur-klima.aspx

Both are very general, are written by journalists and contain no evidence supporting AGW.

Now ant give me those other 75 of the 80 links you claim are evidence supporting AGW. I don't want just a few I want to see all of them.

A rich vein that Christian Science Monitor with links For Leo JF and IMJ like 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
and http://www.livescience.com/21980-global-warming-skeptic-turnaround.html
and http://www.livescience.com/19466-climate-change-myths-busted.html
and http://www.livescience.com/17144-climate-change-skeptics-skeptical.html
and more!
What a suppository of knowledge!

I realize IMJ hasn't the time to inform himself about anything, which accounts for his uninformed opinion, but how about you other guys/gals?

The primary link was NOT to Goddard but to the IPCC FAR!

I included the Goddard link which had the FAR graph showing the 1974 low point.

Typical alarmist; even when you link to the IPCC they don't believe you.

Tell me Lucifarse

what exactly are those links supposed to tell me.

Are they links that give evidence of AGW like the links ant gave us that debunked his own beliefs. You know the ones that he now wants to run away from?

'I realize IMJ hasn't the time to inform himself about anything, which accounts for his uninformed opinion, but how about you other guys/gals?'

Well this assertion on all the evidence is just so wrong. I read every link ant supplied with the view to assessing and informing myself.

And didn't they do that ... particularly items one, two and three
which said:
'..., but no one has been able to prove that CO2 caused the warming.'

'Ita is one of the latest-forming Category 5 storms in Australian history,'

'... the sea ice decline, but the direct cause is a complicated combination of factors resulting from the warming, and from climate variability'

Do you think ant uninformed because I seem to have read the detail in the links he posted? If he had as a warmer terrorist I doubt, if he had any brains, he would ever cite the above as evidence supporting AGW. Don't you think?

And rest assured Lucifarse I shall read the links you have provided as well. I do have the time and now very much the inclination. For your sake I hope they actually have evidence that proves AGW and don't contain evidence debunking AGW ... like ant's links.

I predict now ant won't post those other 75 links either. He'll have to read and understand what they say first because he knows I will read them. But he's slow so it might take a year or two for him to complete that exercise.