Do you really believe this stuff doog, or does your living depend on you convincing the gullible to believe it?

The cause of past climate change particularly the last few ice ages are primarily due to Milankovitch changes in the earths orbit around the sun.
They are not related to changes in the sun's output, which is remarkably constant despite minor changes due to changes in sunspot activity.

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

The Antarctic holds most of the worlds ice and it is on land. It has been clearly shown that the Antarctic land ice is melting and the rate is increasing. The evidence comes from various sources such as satellites which measure local gravity. From memory the ice loss is up around 100 cubic kilometers per year. That the sea ice has increased is largely irrelevant as it is seasonal.

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/environment/climate-change/ice-sheets-and-sea-level-rise

To Doogood.

Natural climatic variation is a fact, and it is part of the historical record. Along come a bunch of Marxist climate scientists, who make the claim that the consumer society which is fuelled by cheap fossil fuels is destroying the planet. It will turn Earth into something resembling Venus, oceans will rise and drown cities, and demons and dragons will rise from the Earth and devour mankind.

That is an interesting theory, but the onus is upon them to prove it. The idea with science is that you don't espouse a theory as fact before you have compelling evidence to back it up. And you don't exchange Emails like the comrades in the East Anglia Climate Research Institute did, where they argued about hiding the evidence that proved that their little theory was wrong. Nor do you slap lawsuits on eminent climatic scientists like Tim Ball, or other scientists who vehemently oppose your theory, to shut them up.

Public opinion is sceptical because the visibility is important. And what the climate alarmists have been predicting has not conformed to self evident reality. Himalayan glaciers refuse to melt. A bunch of climate scientists get trapped in sea ice which they predicted wasn't there. Australia's own "Climate Commissioner" Tim Flannery claimed the "the dams (in Australia) will never fill again." Well Doogood, they are not only full to the brim, one of them overflowed and drowned Brisbane. Then Tim shot himself in the foot and bought a waterside property to show everybody what he thinks of rising sea levels.

I have lived through a time when some scientists predicted that the Earth was returning to an Ice Age. Some scientists claimed that smoking did not cause lung cancer. Some claimed that the world would soon run out of food, and later, that it would soon run out of oil. I have lived through the "millennium bug" hokum, where passenger airliners were predicted to fall out of the sky. And in every case, there were Chicken Little's like yourself, running around in a panic, and screaming that the sky was falling

Lego
"That is an interesting theory, but the onus is upon them to prove it. The idea with science is that you don't espouse a theory as fact before you have compelling evidence to back it up."

Actually you have this back to front no physical theory can ever be proved beyond doubt. Scientists always try to disprove any new theories that are brought up. A good theory will lead to a number of experiments that will quickly demonstrate whether the theory has merit or not. In other words it is easy to prove a theory wrong but impossible to prove it is right.

The theory of climate is all about heat and how it moves through the system. A simple example is on a clear night heat leaves the earth much more easily leading to much colder overnight temperatures compared to a cloudy night which limits heat loss to space. We knew long before Marxists that greenhouse gases do the same thing except that they do not restrict the heat coming in from the sun.

The usual bleating from the usual strawmen denialists who frequent this website including Lego and Hasbeen. And you are little better Curm. Call yourself a rational professional journalist and you fail to call out drivel like all climate scientists are 'alarmists' engaged in a 'marxist conspiracy theory' who know about natural climate variability. You are really a paid propagandist. God knows if you other persistent bleaters are paid or not or whether you just have a lot of shares in coal but you are certainly deluded. Why do I waste my time responding to the same old rot? That'll do me I've had enough.

Here we go: The sun has an eleven year cycle, Not 65 year cycle. Your brand of science has no meaning, only denial of everything to do with climate. With your ideas of what may be causing the change [at least you recognize change is happening, the cause is in question] has not any evidence at all.
Has been says twice as much Co2 in the atmosphere would be beneficial, that experiment failed 20 years ago.
400 parts / million at present, With a planet that is reducing it’s Co2 output is not going to decrease Co2 in the atmosphere, because of the damage that has already been done by ice melt releasing more and more Co2 into the atmosphere.
So it is best to plan for change. I don’t know how to put it any simpler