An extract from the article to which Poirot refers us:
“Since nothing in science is ever proven, apparently these individuals simply don't want NASA GISS to discuss science in their public releases or websites anymore. What specifically do they object to?”
This is just the start of the devious nonsense in the article, but it gives the tone of what Poirot is prepared to swallow, and to endorse.
The author of the article, associated with the fraudulent Skeptical Science site, has the gall to say:
The letter of course provides no examples of NASA GISS public releases or websites claiming that CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change, and of course provides zero examples of these mysterious "hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists" who disbelieve these unspecified catastrophic claims. As is always the case with these types of letters, it is all rhetoric and no substance.”

Following is a statement from a NASA site, typical of the statements put out by NASA, but the author seems to need directions to find them:
“
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. “
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Poirot has not answered the question as to her basis for fraud backing, but it is evident that it is dishonesty. The article is dismissive of the 8 astronauts signing the letter which requests NASA desist from making unproven statements on climate change, which Poirot sees as proving the lack of qualification of astronauts. Rather than the mendacity of the fraud backer who wrote the article.

SPQR, I think it would be very silly to suggest that natural climate change is not happening. Every 26,000 years the earth's axis changes.
The sun periodically has much sun spot activity which has an impact on the earth's climate, volcanoes have an impact also. Even movement of the tectonic plates over a long period has an impact.
Various emissions can be tested for, sunspot activity, has been low, and there has been no major volcanic action which would have an impact. It is known that the impact of warming created by man can trigger natural impacts. It has the ironic name of positive feedback.

The Dr Shakhova clips I provided above do acknowledge natural warming forces; but also discusses anthropogenic impacts.
Experiments show how carbon dioxide responds to light, I have provided that as a reference somewhere.
Much of the anti climate change argument comes from a political sphere; we know that politicians lie and some of their supporters carry through with the lies. Heartlands and IPA are supporters of big business and have a vested interest in carrying through with not telling the truth.
People who believe the climate is changing but not through anthropogenic means, need to think about what they can do to reduce impacts in relation to planning for the future.

Leo Lane,

"Poirot has not answered the question as to her basis for fraud backing, but it is evident that it is dishonesty..."

Hee hee!.....

the one thing never forgot.
ant says..by way/of redirection<<..clips showing
how ice/containing methane\can be lit.>>sea/floor.has/rivers\of-the-junk.[end-time/talks;of burning-water]be/afraid\very-afraid/bunga\bunga

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQDVr1eMLK8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BVsS6vo60Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80ooWqpCdZE

ant>>>compounds his ERROR*/to\the point where\EVERYstory has two sides[and].once we judged/ANYTHING*..we\became one-eyed

i think/nothing better*reveals/this inherent
human weakness*.[WE/loVE\AGREEMENT;PEACe]
yet/please\see-how..*once we love/things..we
..blind oursees/to the..;..other things.[LOVE/BLINDED]

its rumoured god.is one-eyed/LOVE-BLIND].he only sees/us via our loves
we dont notice when he 'sins'..cause we dont dare judge god

lets face it/us/hollow caust/deniers/yet its their holow cost/thats broke
man/made-warming is a secular joke
a faulse god..[and every false-god/hAS feet rooted in the dirt/lies/spin\sin-tax/that gets in.

<<..In relation to methane; disputing methane shows a misunderstanding of what happens when permafrost melts>>

mate/the area\..of the melt'..is minute/in relation/to the total combines methane emisions from worm-farms/and far less than home compost bins/or rotting food we never een ate/yet transported arround the world/frozeN/THEN DEFROSTED/PURE METHANE BMEASUABLE/IN LIGHT-YEARS/AND YOuR CRYING ABOUT A Localized/sized/-EVENT?

<<>>and how it reacts in water>>

MATEY//ICE MELT=water..99 percent the tundra=still under ice/you got a few hundred square miles/a local event

>>,,.The science is there,..>>

but its been manipulated/modeled modified/set up to fail
paid to blog bloggers speading one eyed science bling

<<>.no way of challenging it.>>
cause your one eye/wont see/your own reproof
you bought into the lie/roffle harris is a pervert

dont want to know more
but we all sinned/none of us has clean hands
we all fight our imnnerr demons/but few act it out[even fewer get bent out of shaPE/BY A LOCALISED EVENT

<<MORE/ANT-RANT> \..It's a bit like
challenging the existence of oxygen.>>

YES/IM FINALLY CONVINCED*
one-eyed/mate..why/because you judged.
now/im as one eyed/as you/yet i see from the other side
i been on these sort of rides to nowhere before/dont come knocking[on my door\//been there done that/sars/birdflue/swine=flue/come get a free shot.

fear is all they got/i hear all gore saying;
pay me aND/i stop taking about scary stuff
DO AS ALL GORE SAY/OR ELSE HE MELTS YA FRIDGE/cause you cant afford the power to run it[i stilfeekl if you got the largess[took the free solar/..your biased..its that simple

PS/i/FIXED UP..YOUR HttP*PS-MESS 2
cause/i..dont\need..hide..'your/proof'
proof/of what..eh-wot?

love*poirot*

Leo
The good astronaut says that 600 to 500 million years ago the level of CO2 was around 3000 ppm. This is probably correct he does not mention what the global temperatures were thought to be. The general understanding is that at between 700M and 500M years ago the temperature was cold enough to produce an ice age but that steadily rising CO2 levels eventually caused average global the temperatures to rise into the high 20s deg C.

The issue is complicated by the fact the sun has been steadily increasing its output. 500 million years ago the sun’s output was some 4% less that today. To make up for this short fall the CO2 level had to be in excess of 3000 ppm just in order to stop the earth from becoming a giant ice ball.

To give you a rough idea the current elevated levels of CO2 of about 40% should have roughly the same effect as increasing solar output by around 1% which is in turn is moderated by aerosols emissions reducing the warming effect by up to a half.

In fact we know from the fossil record that liquid water must have been available 3.5 billion years ago, but yet the sun’s output that far back was some 30% less than today which in theory would suggest that global temperatures should have been well below the freezing point of water. The only way we can make sense of this, is by considering the greenhouse effect of CO2.

The bottom line is the good astronaut appears to be unaware of these facts.

airs/quote<<..to give-you/a rough idea?
how rough?

<<the current*elevated levels*of CO2>
YOU LOT\ARE UNBELIEVABLE/lol\..its like\all/previous-numbers\are-gone

the current*lower-levels*..<<of\about 40%/should have\roughly the same effect/[lol]/as increasing solar\output/by around 1%>....]
[compared/to when?]

are you\saying/the suns;enregy-emmision
is constant/across time

sources-please/warmist-hollowcauster

<<which is/in turn is\moderated by aerosols emissions
reducing the warming effect by up to a half.""

funny/how with/the ozone-hole,we\were told/its going to get hot
but thank-god/its\only 40%/reduced by half[or some other stuff and unsubstantiated spin

<<.In fact we know from the fossil record>>
via fossilzed.........'snow/or fossilised co2
maybe fossilised methane/carbon dated by nasa of/course

item/4.<<that liquid water must/have been available 3.5 billion years ago''

yourpoint being/we deney/it?
want us to verfify-it?

<,,,ut yet the sun’s output/"
[of water?]

<<that far back/>;[3 billion plus years?]
<<was some 30% less/than today""
just today toady?

<<,which in theory/would suggest/that global
temperatures should\have been well below/the freezing point of water.""

OH SO 40 PERCENT MORE WATERLESS ICE?

<<,,The only way we can make sense of this,
is by considering the greenhouse effect of CO2.""

RIGHT/GOT-YA
THATS WHY IT READS LIKE NONSENSE/its me/not you
fossilized water-ice/methaneyes pleastwo cones full*
it still sounds like bULL/OR AS Tony says/its strange greenie cccrap

do greenies poop in the wood
of course/let that be understood
greenies neEd eat masive vego meals/all\that wasted food put into compost
and compost makes methane.go grow ya own/methane
its only 40 times worse than c02/per unit[worse is that greenouse polutant/used to clean solar cells.............

sell outs sold us out
they sell solar power for up to 55 cents
thats criminal/no other word for it.........................\

who the bigger criminals?
http://www.independentaustralia.net/business/business-display/who-owns-corporate-australia,5033

Due/to\the complex-nature\of/the legal structuresof shareholders and ways \that the various shareholders/work together\it is virtually impossible/to determine\who really controls the banks.[HSBC* JP Morgan/and Citibank]along with many other European and US banks as their\major shareholders.

often countered/by stating that HSBC,J.P.Morgan and Citibank\are only investing/;on behalf of small investors./What is of issue here is control\and the prerogative/of the funds\to appoint a director to the board of their choice,/*not the investors.

These figures/are also\consistent-with a recent worldwide study showing\that most/of the-world's/company\equity-is controlled\by no more than 25 companies,/of which\many of/these companies\have equity in/Australian-banks]