Max, you will do anything to avoid the topic.You question “no heating(sic) since 1997”
In 2010, Phil Jones, the Climategate miscreant said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz3YCKEgrYx
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

That takes us back to 1995. Later,Jones did a Hansen, and said it was statistically significant from 1995 to 1997.

So no global warming since 1997. Is that a “denialist meme” that I am quoting?. Since you have been ignorant enough to use the term “denialist”, please tell me what is being denied.No one denied that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but merely pointed out that the IPCC, in making predictions about global warming based on the effect of CO2 has been disastrously wrong. The increase of atmospheric content of CO2 has not resulted in global warming. Warming results in an increase in CO2 content, not the other way around. There are many more factors to climate than one minor greenhouse gas, a fact which the IPCC, and you, have disingenuously ignored.
You have relied on CO2 being a greenhouse gas, a baseless assertion that humans are responsible for increased CO2 content in the atmosphere(apart from your ludicrous assertion that it is somehow the human”bag ofeathers” that accumulates in the atmosphere) , and warming which stopped in 1997.
Is this the “science” which I have “ignored”? How does it show that human emissions have a measurable effect on climate?

Leo Lane. Are you suggesting that the increasingly polluted planet that is making many people ill, doesn't matter? Surely, whether the warming and climate change that seems to be occurring has its origins in nature or human activity is beside the point! We're poisoning our environment and ourselves...We have to clean up our act if we want to survive. It's that simple. Forget who or what is to blame for global warming, and concentrate on the simple fact that we have all but destroyed the natural world in which we evolved and which is essential for our form of life to exist. If we don't stop fouling our nest, we're stuffed.

Dear Leo lane.

Ive been around the internet since it started....Its a great tool!..Computers are the windows to our soles....and best of all, hot topics like this one:)..

Leo, the people can see with their own eyes:)...I've never seen a blind god needed for climate change, but your the best yet:)

All would agree that all storm systems are getting a tone or to higher with each decade passing.... ybgirp..hes as tough as nails...:)

Good luck

Tally

Ybgirp, I do not understand the basis upon which you consider that I do not mind pollution. If you believe that carbon dioxide is pollution, then think again.
It is a colourless, odourless gas, without which most life on earth would not continue to exist.
If the fraud-backers could reduce carbon dioxide to 270 parts per million we would see crop failures and famine. Reduction of carbon emissions is dangerous nonsense. We need more CO2, not less.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16886

Tally, I would like to reply to you, but found neither of your posts intelligible. What are you saying? I hope you understand that global warming does not cause more frequent or more intense storms

Lol!

And this, folks.....

"...Reduction of carbon emissions is dangerous nonsense. We need more CO2, not less."

...is why Leo shambles around here spouting his simplistic balderdash, instead of debating on "real" science sites - places where he couldn't hold his own for 3 seconds against people who actually know what they're talking about.

Leo,
coal may just be the most expensive form of electricity we have ever produced: but only if we measure all the real costs!

The CO2 I exhale might not be a 'pollutant' because it is in sink with the carbon cycle. The carbon I exhale is in proportion to the above-ground ecosystems and life cycles I am a part of. Leaves drop in Autumn releasing vast CO2, and Spring soaks it up again in vast quantities. Natural. But adding 28 billion tons from *underground* is not natural. That CO2 was not in the natural carbon cycle, and we can identify it by the isotopes. It's small, but over time builds up, now adding 4 Hiroshima bombs per second of heat to this planet!

Sure CO2 is natural. Water is natural, even essential for life! But drinking too much of it can kill you!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

You're avoiding the demonstrable physics and demonstrable effects!
Watch the CANDLE for just one minute! Starts 90 seconds in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Global Warming = ocean warming
//Expansion seems simple, but measuring it is a challenge. “Over 90 percent of the heat trapped inside Earth’s atmosphere by global warming is going into the oceans,” Willis said. Temperature data from 19th-century ship, compared to a set of 3,600 buoys measuring ocean temperature today, confirms that the ocean – especially its upper half – has warmed since 1870.//
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2201/

Glaciers retreating:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/images/glacier-retreat

Lastly, here's a newsflash for you. Daily mail is not a science journal! Wow, what an old and biased, anti-science piece of tabloid you discovered there! Instead, if one just bothers going to wikipedia you'll find that 'climategate' was an exaggerated scare tactic by denialists involving *deliberate* misreading of the emails and science, and that many enquiries exonerated the entire team and entire science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy

But you'd rather quote Daily Mail? Hey, do they discount your tinfoil hats if you quote them enough?