First, there is what Bob Carter says --- then there is what science says.
http://skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Bob_Carter.htm

cohenite says --- "one thing is certain that climate change is not AGW" Quite right!

However, AGW causes climate change

cohenite, you provide a reference that is a political one as an answer against climate change.
You know better than the people of the USA as to how climate change is progressing. The NSA Report is 829 pages and referenced by over 3,000 papers. Many of the papers referenced have a number of professionals involved with each paper; yet, you know better about Water Resources in the USA, Forestry, Agriculture, Human Health, Indigenous People; along with what is occurring in various regions of the USA etc.
Your comment "... Inuit may or may not be suffering due to climate change" is at best insensitive in the extreme. A problem you have is to try and argue against events that are already happening in the US in relation to climate change.
cohenite, could you please go through the 3,000 + references and indicate where they are wrong.

Peter
"No one has answered the key questions and provided the relevant information to make a persuasive case “we will all be in deep poo”. These questions need to be answered, not continually avoided. Simply repeating the mantra of irrelevant arguments is the opposite of persuasive."

Yes they have in considerable detail.

Study of the last thermal maximum 50 million years ago gives some idea of the chaos that will ensue.

Here is a start

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/booklets/warming_world_final.pdf

But if you don't want read the link a roughly

If temperatures exceed a certain level the feed backs become a major issue.

The high latitudes become much warmer due to lack of reflecting ice.

A dramatic increase in natural emissions of methane will occur further enhancing temperatures.

The global average temperature stabilises at some figure north of 6 Deg C warmer.

The situation becomes irreversible and eventually all the ice caps melt and sea levels increases by some 60 meters.

Total disruption occurs to water supplies and agriculture.

95% + of the population has to relocate to higher ground

War and conflict become inevitable.

On that happy note that's it from me for a while I have other commitments to deal with

Warmair,

You say all that is true. You say "WILL" throughout. That discredits all you say to the point of me seeing it as simply religious like belief. Clearly you do not understand risk analysis, Nor do you understand the relevance or time scales.

There are many studies by the best brains around on the consequences of warming. Here is one example. Look at Figure 3. http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf

Note that AGW would be net beneficial for most of this century. It would be net beneficial for much longer than that if we allow ourselves to have low cost energy. That's a good reason for not pushing for policies like ETS and renewable energy which will make no difference to the climate but have a detrimental impact on human wellbeing.

What a pathetic joke, Agronomist, giving Skeptical Science as a scientific reference.

The fraud backers have yet to show that global warming is detrimental. Past periods of warming have shown that it is beneficial.

You must have read the Climategate emails, which demonstrate the sheer dishonesty of the fraud –backers, but you give credence to the baseless assertions of Skeptical Science contradicting a competent, reputable scientist like Bob Carter.

A sample from that site:
“Through its impacts on the climate, CO2 presents a danger to public health and welfare, and thus qualifies as an air pollutant “
This inept attempt to counter science, Agronomist, is what you call “science”. CO2 is an odourless, colourless gas essential to all life on earth, and these frauds want to call it “pollution”?
And they persist with this ridiculous lie:” 97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming”

.Why do you support the AGW fraud, Agronomist? There is no science to justify your position.There is no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.