You are dead wrong, ant, as is Agronomist.
Agronomist, Tim Ball wrote an article on the nonsense of AGW, and the lies of its supporter, James Hansen. Some relevant extracts:
“Hansen told the hearing that he was "99 percent sure . . the [human caused] greenhouse effect has been detected and it is changing our climate now." No scientist would make such a claim. It even contradicts what the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in 1995. They asserted,"…no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes." Hansen's 1988 predictions have turned out to be150 percent wrong.
Undeterred, Hansen now writes that he underestimated how bad things would actually get and makes even more of the sort of mistakes that have been typical throughout his career. In his July 2012 article, The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change, he and his co-authors cite the 2007 IPCC Report which said "...observed global warming is now attributed with high confidence to increasing greenhouse gases (IPCC 2007a)."
Yet, real observations show the opposite-temperature has declined as carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas of most concern to the IPCC, increased.
and political views to perpetuate false science to the detriment of society.
Consider the comment by German physicist and meteorologist and Klaus-Eckard Puls
Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it. The CO2-climate hysteria in Germany is propagated by people who are in it for lots of money, attention and power.”
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13963&page=0

Mann, the Climategate miscreant, had the temerity to sue Tim Ball for saying he should be locked up for his climate “science” on AGW.

Warmair, your comprehension is of a low order. I read the document at the first link to where it says “very likely”. That is not science. It is a guess based on a lack of scirntific proof. A better guess would be that it is 100% certain that the effect of human emissions on climate is trivial and of no scientific significance. That is what is shown by the available science. Was your assertion based on ignorance or dishonesty, hotair?
If there were any such science as you baselessly assert, the IPCCriminals would know of it, and would not have to make their current stupid untenable statements.

Leo, you are telling me I'm wrong when I write about how permafrost is melting in Alaska and Northern Polar areas generally, and how shorelines formerly protected by ice sheets is now significantly being eroded by storms. Alaskan newspapers are stating such erosion is happening, there are papers in relation to sociological impacts, and papers about epidemiological matters created through climate change.

Foothill communities living under the South American Andes are very worried about not being able to access meltwater from glaciers as glaciers are retreating. That is being investigated at present, a real matter of concern created through a real situation.

Heatwaves are a feature of climate change and after the heat waves experienced in Victoria earlier this year, a significant number of elderly/infirm died. It is not possible to say a couple of heat wave events are associated with climate change; but, extreme heat wave conditions are expected with climate change.
Already huge anomalies in temperature have been experienced in Northern areas of the Northern Hemisphere; that is true for Alaska, Greenland, Norway and Sweden.

Leo
You obviously don not understand that terms such as "very likely" have a precise statistical meaning when used by the IPPC.

IPPC definitions

Virtually certain_________________ > 99% probability
Extremely likely_________________ > 95% probability
Very likely_____________________ > 90% probability
Likely >_______________________ >66% probability
More likely than not______________ > 50% probability
About as likely as not____________ 33 to 66% probability
Unlikely______________________ < 33% probability
Very unlikely___________________ < 10% probability
Extremely unlikely_______________ < 5% probability
Exceptionally unlikely____________ < 1% probability

So if your doctor told you that a particular medicine was very likely (90%+ chance) to cure you, would you refuse to take it unless it was virtually certain (99%+chance) that it would cure you ?

Nature has a huge carbon cycle, ant, and 97% of the CO2 is natural while 3% is from human emissions. There is a 10% natural variation in volume. The effect of the human component has not been shown to have significance enough to be scientifically noticed. The effect is so trivial that it has no measurable effect. You are wrong in your constant references to climate change, which you intend to be understood as defined by the IPCC which fraudulently imputes an effect on climate by human activity. As I have said previously, I am not interested in your irrelevant observations on melting ice and inuits.

Warmair,the nonsense of the definitions added to the nonsense of the paper makes no difference to my view, and your clumsy attempt to make a comparison to a doctor’s prescription is inappropriate. The comparitive situation is where I am 99% certain that the prescription would not work,

Each year missions from land and vegetation (444bn tonnes) are more than off-set by the level of CO2 absorbed (450bn tonnes). The same is true for the oceans which emit 332bn tones but absorb 338bn tonnes. In other words: the natural environment is more than in balance since it absorbs more CO2 than it emits.

However, human activity involves burning fossil fuels which add over 23bn tones to the atmosphere which is about 11bn tonnes CO2 more than can be absorbed by the natural environment. As a result, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere increases. This increase produces a greenhouse effect causing global warming.

The rate of human activity – burning fossil fuels – is increasing resulting in higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere, an increasing greenhouse effect and rising average global surface temperature. An easy to understand article explaining this is to be found at: http://skepticalscience.com/Palmer-United-Party-go-back-to-school-carbon-facts.htm