--- Honour thy father and thy mother that thy days may be lengthened upon the land which the Lord thy God gives thee ---

[Exodus 20:12]

Doesn't look as your dilemma lasted long, John, therefore your days will now be short. Your mother never specified what you are to write about: had you been listening to her, you could instead solve your dilemma by describing the sky: "The sky is blue", here goes!

Wow another Abbott hater has rehashed the same old fodder for the lefties on this Forum to line up behind and start preaching to the converted.

I feel a post from someone providing us with a link to quotes from David Marr's Political Animal is moments away.

Short memories conveniently erase the failures, the lies and the incompetency of our first female Prime Minister.

ConservativeHippie,

"Short memories conveniently erase the failures, the lies and the incompetency of our first female Prime Minister."
Apart from the carbon tax (which Tony Abbott also lied about) what lies are you referring to? And what incompetency?

'Abbott the cultural warrior, a budgie smuggling exhibitionist, with all the subtlety of a bare fisted pugilist, a flag waving pseudo nationalist nutter who would not look out of place with the pro-Russian Ukraine separatists, a debater not an orator, in order to make a point he often resorts to dumbed down repetition'

shows the bankrupcty of our academic world where Dr Tom can write such spew and hatred. Are you related to Marr Tom? The fact that he doesn 't share your idiotic gw faith should not produce such a bile filled rant. I know Tony has defeated Turnbull, Rudd, Gillard, Rudd and is likely to see the back of Shorten all of whom shared your faith for at least periods of time when it seemed convenient. I suggest you grow up.

Besides being an Abbott-hater, John is a climate fraud supporter, a dishonest one:
“The world is rushing headlong towards an increase of 2 degrees, the acidification of the oceans, the intensification of adverse weather event leading to increasingly dangerous storm activity and more frequent droughts in semi-arid areas, significant rises in sea levels which will inundate vast food producing areas displacing millions of the poorest people. The world already has over 50 million displaced people more than at any time since the Second World War. The last thing that is needed is ever more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere”

He even includes the nonsense of “ocean acidification”, which no longer fools even the gullible.The fraud promoter the IPCC concedes that extreme weather events cannot be shown to be caused by global warming. This assertion comes from liars like Gore and Obama, and repeated in dishonest articles like the above.
Nature has a huge cycle of carbon dioxide of which human emissions contribute a paltry three per centThis is no doubt the reason why there is no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.

Aiden, rather than enumerate her endless lies, it would be more feasible to report the one time Gillard told the truth, when asked about the possibility of failure to produce a budget surplus. She said, “Failure is not an option”. This was true. Failure is not optional for Labor, it is their standard, invariable outcome on economic matters.

There is much truth in what you say John?

But it could also apply to most of our former national leaders? But particularly Rudd, who in my opinion, couldn't lie straight in bed?

And as desirable as some of the policies you outlined, we still need to be able to actually afford them.

Always providing we don't run out of other people's money!

That said, why should we treat our uninvited guests more generously than we're required to by our signed conventions!

Which require us to provide a place of comparative safety and resettlement "somewhere" for genuine asylum seekers. The operative word being genuine!

We're under no obligation to resettle them here, the prize offered by the criminal people smugglers as their business model!

Genuine asylum seekers would treasure their identifying paperwork as their most prized possessions,as that would allow us to treat them as genuine!

And given they to a generic man, need this identification and visas to fly to the transit countries and then can afford the exorbitant fees charged by people smugglers; they can hardly be described as penniless refugees; or indeed, genuine asylum seekers!
Rhrosty.

Much of what he says is true, and Abbott, Hockey, and Turnbull are very hard to like. Might as well add the two Bishops to that while I'm about it.

But this bloke is all about ideology. I'll bet he didn't have much to say about all the lies told by Gillard and Rudd; and he hasn't mentioned any thing about Bill Shorten's either.

A liar is a liar, irrespective of political brands

To me this reads like an accurate description of the mad monk.
Why is he (quite rightly) called the mad monk?
Read his manifesto Battlelines and find out. Everything he says and does is just an extrapolation of the ideology and the street-fighting pugilist attitude that he describes there.

Comparing the wall-to-wall lies that he has told, and the broken promises (too), to those committed by either Julia Gillard or Kevin Rudd is quite beside the point - the indisputable fact is that Abbott has hoisted himself on his own petard - inevitably so.

Last night I happened to watch a Youtube video on the topic of Abbott's lies and broken promises. It is all there on the public record, including his statement as to how things would be completely different to the Gillard/Rudd government.

My mother also told me: -
If you have nothing pleasant to say about
someone - keep quiet.

Although I'm not sure that she meant to include
politicians into that.

Anyway, let's take a look at some positives of Mr Abbott:

1) He had an active-hand on the downfall of One Nation.

2) He's made a large number of people wake up to how
they are being lied to and deceived by the Murdoch media.

3) He's garnered huge support for the ABC.

4) More people are watching Q&A as a result of his boycott.

5) He is appearing less and less on TV.

6) He is overseas a lot.

7) He is not my local member.

Then there's also -

8) He's a surf life-saver.

9) He's a volunteer member of the NSW rural fire service.

10) He has excellent taste and judgement about his chosen
female partner.

11) He has good-looking daughters.

12) He has a good-looking female advisor.

13) He has aptly chosen the right speaker of the House
for his Party.

14) He has united the Liberal Party into speaking as one
on all issues.

There will be more to come ...

Another fabulist tirade from a protected workshop (QUT) by someone who has never really worked and being taxpayer protected had to live with the consequences of poor decisions. If Abbott killed a shark while saving a non-cis, disabled, minority female they would try to do a "citizens arrest" over an endangered species.

Probably has verballed mum.

I seem to recall that if our former PM, Julia Gillard
would have walked on water, the Murdoch newspaper headlines
would have been, "Prime Minister Can't Swim!"

It's quid pro quo.

What goes around comes around.

In Mr Abbott's case - he's earned it!

The author states "He foreshadowed cuts to state governments of $80 million in the areas of health and education in the forward years."

Make that $80 Billion that is due to be cut from state health and education budgets starting from 2017 over the next decade. Brace yourselves when those cuts hit - they are guaranteed to sting.

//Short memories conveniently erase the failures, the lies and the incompetency of our first female Prime Minister.//

Long memories conveniently erase the failures, the lies and the incompetency of our male Members, so that they might heap shyt upon our first female Prime Minister.

A strategy that might have worked if dinosaurs still roamed the earth - presumably with the direct (highly inbred) descendants of Adam & St(Eve) riding on their backs.

But frankly, male Members don't instil me with confidence. They're always to keen to play tin soldiers with real people's lives.

Give me a male politician who is more yin than yang, and they'll have my vote. But Australian politics these days seems to be all about the yang, and who can out-yang one another.

Karma will rebound. That's what Karma does; it seeks out imbalances in the Force and corrects them. A yang imbalance cannot exist for too long before the Karma Police arrest their man and throw the book at him.

Cheers,

Toni

Hands up!

Karma Police! This is a raid!

* You have the right to remain silent. About your own life. Data pertaining to past lives remains the property of the Karma Police.
* Anything you say or do may be used against you in a court of law. Points will be awarded/conducted for what your ancestors may/have said/done,/failed to to do/failed to say. But also anything you might say or do. Points will be awarded/conducted for what your descendants will/not do, will/not/say, and will/not/do.
* Anything can say/might have said has been said, or has yet to be spoken but has been heard.

You have been arrested by the Karma Police. We are not the universe, we just enforce her will.

Gillard's extracurricular activities were slush funding, supporting misogynists (speaker (liberal castoff), Newcastle sexcapades), back stabbing and whining about imaginary oppression (something about a "blue ties" phobia?) while in the top job.

Really comparable; not.

Just to jog some memories:

http://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/a-fair-go-for-prime-minister-Julia-Gillard,5196

Toni Lavis, your posts have always been sub-standard, but you have now descended into delusional nonsense. Have you mistaken this garbage for humour? You sound as ridiculous as Gillard, in her ratbag remarks about misogyny.

“ leaves me with the sense that the man is stark raving mad.”
There is no value in considering what you might sense, John. You have shown yourself to be a lying lefty, which makes your instincts highly suspect.

Abbott has done a sterling job in delivering what he was elected to do.
He stopped the boats, repealed the carbon tax despite the obstruction of Labor and the greens.
Abbott’s primary task is to overcome the debt left by the economic vandals of Labor, and he would not defer that to keeping less important items in his financial platform, which have been characterised by the Labor vandals and the addle-brained left, such as John, as broken promises.

It will be a bonus if Abbott is able to protect us from the climate fraud supported by John, and avoid the legislation of a perverted definition of marriage.

As to climate fraud, here is an impartial comment by Robert Carter, a competent and honest climate scientist:
“Global atmospheric temperature reached a peak in 1998, has not warmed since 1995 and, has been cooling since 2002. Some people, still under the thrall of the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change's disproved projections of warming, seem surprised by this cooling trend, even to the point of denying it.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/news/facts-debunk-global-warming-alarmism/story-e6frg746-1111118607086

Leo your link was posted in 2009, i think it is about 2015 now. In any case a cold day does not make a cold year.
When ocean temperatures get cold and stop ice melt you can say we are in reprieve.
400 PPm of Co2 has tipped the balance beyond recovery, so get used of it.
Abbott won the election based on lies, so we don,t really have a measure of his elected outcome do we. He will one day get his chance to defend his actions that we are not allowed to know about. Hope he doesn't intend applying for a job with the UN, that would be to much.

Turnbull is the only statesman they have, even though we are getting a third world NBN. Turnbull says it is a stepping stone to something better.

You seem to believe that facts have a “use by” date, doog. The facts in the link are as valid as they were in 2009.
You seem not to have noticed that the assertions by the IPCC about CO2 have been shown by observation of nature to be invalid. When the ppm of co2 in the atmosphere rose, global warming stopped. We now have baseless assertions that it has paused, or that it has not really stopped.
Warming causes a rise in CO2. A rise in CO2 does not cause warming.
There is no science to back your support of the climate fraud, so it can only be based on your ignorance or dishonesty.
You have certainly demonstrated your ignorance, but we cannot yet rule out dishonesty

Frog swaddle: It is my assertion that Co2 has reached it's peak. the world is slowing down it's output of Co2, but the defrosting of permafrost and glacial ice remains very strong and will maintain the current level of c02.

It is no good saying ice melt is not happening if that is your thought.
Ice thousands of years old are now being thawed and increasing. That can not be anything but climate change.

Sea level temps have risen and undermining glacial flows. Itinerate ice has gained huge amounts of extra km's in area only to disappear during summer, then glacial flows again start.

Climate change is more prominent in the Arctic region, greenland and Alaska. Co2 is the best indicator of climate change as nothing else can compare to it's rise since industrialisation.

CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, doog, and does not, by itself, control temperature.
Murry Salby has credibly asserted that temperature governs the CO2 content of the atmosphere, and there is no credible scientific basis disproving this.
The IPCC have taken the lab science on the effect of CO2 on global temperature, and by applying it have shown that it does not work in practice, on global climate, which is far more complicated than drawing conclusions from a reading of ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere, as the failed predictions of the IPCC conclusively demonstrate.

The lab science is over 100 years old, doog. You think facts have a use-by date, so what about lab science?
There is no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate, so talking about melting ice does not address your baseless support of the fraudulent assertion that human emissions are causing global warming.

Why not face reality, doog, and stop talking nonsense?

Ok Leo you tell me your unbiased conclusions as to what is causing Climate change, and lets not through a bag over it by saying it's cyclical or some such Bull*hit.

Probably the most relevant work, doog, was a paper by three Australian scientists in July 2009, which showed that the warming alleged to be human caused, was natural, leaving no room for the asserted human caused warming.
http://mclean.ch/climate/docs/McLean_deFreitas_Carter_JGR_2009.pdf
The climategate emails came out at that time, showing how perturbed the fraud-backers were.
Warming of the globe is natural, and not caused by humans, and humans do not have the expertise to change the climate, of which our knowledge is quite limited.
If that is throwing a bag over it, what is your suggestion, support lies about it?

There is nothing natural at all about the climate decending into catastrophic sircumstances. 2009 is your only defence against a non natural occurance.

They make models that last a matter of days because of change that is gaining pace. It is getting to the point of being laughable.

Abbott says it's crap, you say it's natural something doesn't add up to well at all.

Abbott is trying to justify what he is doing about climate change, probably so he doesn't get laughed out of it in france. Where is all those billions of trees he was on about. Au is the worlds worst Co2 producer per population.

Nature has been compromised beyond it's tipping point, and there is no solution. Climate change has now got a life of it's own. [NASA]

Leo Lane, I think you'd better read http://www.skepticalscience.com/peer-reviewed-response-to-McLean-El-Nino-paper.html

Yes doog and Aiden, still no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate?
Aiden refers us to the deceptively named Skeptical Science run by the fraud-backer John Cook, who specialises in lies about sea levels, but recently was also caught out on his “peer reviewed” paper showing that 97% of climate scientists backed human caused global warming.
“Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/
No one seriously offers Cook’s site as a scientific reference, other than ignoramuses or fraud-backers

Leo, have I understood you correctly: because someone found a flaw in one of John Cook's claims (not about the climate itself, but merely the opinions of scientists) you assume his rebuttal of McLean, deFreitas and Carter's paper to be worthless? If your objective is to remain ignorant, that's certainly an effective way to go about it!

I must admit to being baffled by your claim there's "no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate" WTF do you think the IPCC's been doing?

But more to the point, I'm puzzled as to how you think it's even POSSIBLE for the burning of fossil fuels to have had no impact?

Do you doubt the Greenhouse Effect is real?
Do you doubt CO2 is a greenhouse gas?
Do you doubt that atmospheric CO2 levels have been rising due to human activity?
Do you doubt that human activity has also raised the concentrations of other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?
Do you doubt that atmospheric temperature has been rising?
Do you doubt that there has also been a breakdown in the relationship between climate and sunspot activity?
Do you think everything's just a coincidence?

When I checked out the link that you claimed discredited Cook, I followed the link to Cook's paper and found that he never mentioned a crisis – which means the main fault lies with media misreporting of it, not the paper itself. At most, all he's done is made a few errors in the classification of papers.

And have a look at the paragraph above the one you quoted to me:
"...The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action."

So the position you're taking is one that even most global warming skeptics reject! Your position is so extreme that even those you cite regard it as "meaningless regarding the global warming debate"!

Aiden, rather than join in your clumsy question and answer attempt, I will quote from , Emeritus Professor Gray, a distinguished climate scientist from the University of Colorado, who produces a question and answer model much superior to any effort you might make:
“Some key questions and answers that are relevant to the climate change debate include the following. Is there an established Theory of Climate? Answer: no. Do we understand fully how climate works? No. Is carbon dioxide demonstrated to be a dangerous atmospheric pollutant? No. Can deterministic computer models predict future climate? Another no. Is there a consensus amongst qualified scientists that dangerous, human-caused climate change is upon us? Absolutely not. Did late 20th century temperature rise at a dangerous rate, or to a dangerous level? No, in either case. Is global temperature currently rising? Surprisingly, no. And finally, is the IPCC a scientific or a political advisory body? Answer: it is both”
http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/2007%2005-03%20AusIMM%20corrected.pdf
The fact remains that the human contribution of carbon dioxide is 3%, which is trivial, and the main reason why the human effect is not measurable.

Leo Lane, what you call a fact is actually a lie. Before the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 was around 280ppm. By 1960 it was 320ppm. Now it's 400ppm. That's not a 3% rise, that's a 25% rise since 1960, or if you compare it with a few centuries ago, it's a 43% rise. And it's all due to human activity – indeed nature's been a net absorber of CO2 during that time.

I see you're using the Jim Hacker technique of avoiding awkward questions. If you stopped trying to outsource your thinking to those who provide misleading answers, you might see the very serious climate fraud that's occurring. Gullible fools like you are parroting misinformation, and avoiding answering the questions that might lead you to realise how ludicrous your claims really are.

Aiden, you cannot be as ignorant as you pretend, but I suppose that to assert the nonsense that you do, you have little option, or you would be regarded as dishonest, rather than ignorant. Even the fraud-backers do not contest that human emissions comprise only only 3% of the carbon dioxide cycle.
The following is a useful summary:
“Not only is carbon dioxide's total greenhouse effect puny, mankind's contribution to it is minuscule. The overwhelming majority (97%) of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere comes from nature, not from man. Volcanoes, swamps, rice paddies, fallen leaves, and even insects and bacteria produce carbon dioxide, as well as methane. According to the journal Science (Nov. 5, 1982), termites alone emit ten times more carbon dioxide than all the factories and automobiles in the world”
http://www.iloveco2.com/2009/04/termites-emit-ten-times-more-co2-than.html
Your assertion that the facts I have disclosed are "extreme" is wierd. Unlike you, I post references to supporting material, while you, having no justification for your assertions, refer us to blatant fraud backers like Skeptical Science, if you give any reference at all.
.

Leo Lane,

Oh, you mean gross emissions. OK, I concede that nature emits and absorbs a huge amount of CO2. But that doesn't alter the fact that THE INCREASE IN ATMOSPHERIC CO2 LEVELS IS ENTIRELY DOWN TO HUMAN ACTIVITY. Nature absorbs more CO2 than it emits.

So when humans are responsible for atmospheric CO2 levels increasing by a quarter since 1960, is the fact that "human emissions comprise only only 3% of the carbon dioxide cycle" of any relevance? If so, how?

I never asserted the facts you've disclosed are extreme, I said the position you've taken is extreme. And I gave a reason: according to http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/ (the link you supplied) "The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action."

Your hypocrisy is breathtaking: you try to support your argument by linking to the silly website iloveco2.com, but whinge about my reference to Skeptical Science when I give a link to its rebuttal of the paper which you claimed "showed that the warming alleged to be human caused, was natural, leaving no room for the asserted human caused warming."

But of course you prefer to shoot the messenger because the climate fraud you participate in requires people to remain ignorant. Hence you avoid explaining your position.

You seem to regard references as a logic substitute. Providing, of course, that they don't challenge your prejudice. I get the impression that if I posted links to high quality sources such as the IPCC, you'd dismiss them as biased. Do you deny it?

Aiden,the argument that it is human emissions that are the cause of increase of co2 in the atmosphere is nonsense. Nature does not change its cycle because 3% of the gas is produced by humans.The cycle does not have a “capacity”, which is exceeded by an increase of a trivial 3%. What is your scientific basis for this assertion? No doubt another nonsense concocted by a fraud-backer without the assistance of science.

As to science, referenced from the IPCC, I would not dismiss science as biased, but statements about science from the IPCC are a different matter, such as when Pachauri dismissed those who validly pointed out the wrong statement in the IPCC report about melting glaciers in the Himalayas, as “voodoo scientists”, I would dismiss as biased.
As to the supposed rebuttal of the McLean et al paper, by Foster et al, that was easily dismissed, but the JGR refused to publish the dismissal of it
The scientist, Jennier Morahasy gives an account of this(MDC is McLean et al):
“ Extraordinarily, the MDC reply, which entirely rebutted the mistaken criticisms of Foster et al., was never published by JGR!
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/07/peer-review-falters-at-the-altar-of-conviction/
How anyone who has read the climategate emails can support the climate fraud is beyond comprehension Have you not read them, Aiden?

Leo Lane, calling a fact "nonsense" doesn't stop it from being true, and if it makes no sense to you then the failure is entirely on your part. You should at least make an effort to understand rather than trying to fool people into believing the conclusions you form from a combination of wishful thinking and tinfoil hat websites!

Nature is in equilibrium: the amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere is roughly equal to the amount being taken out, and with good reason: animals, fungi and bacteria can only put into the atmosphere the carbon the plants have removed, and plants can only remove what the animals etc and fire put in (and are also limited by available land, sunlight, water and nutrients). In your termite example, the amount emitted due to termite activity is limited by the amount of dead wood available. (It's not quite that simple as there are geological processes as well, but their contribution is small on this timescale).

Humans, by burning fossil fuels, are returning to the atmosphere a lot of the carbon that nature removed millions of years ago. Nature hasn't changed its cycle, but we're adding CO2 to the atmosphere much faster than nature can absorb. As a result the measured atmospheric CO2 concentration has risen 25% since 1960.

You link to a blog post as evidence that the paper by Foster et al was easily dismissed by the MDC response that JGR didn't publish. I think a much more likely explanation for not publishing was that the MDC response failed to address the issues raised. If you've got real evidence otherwise, I'd like to see it.

As for Climategate, that initially looked fraudulent but a detailed investigation found it wasn't. A few scientists, concerned about press misreporting of their results (something some British newspapers had a track record of) tried to restrict access to their findings. Obviously they shouldn't've done so, but it wasn't actually fraudulent.

So you have no science, Aiden, just conclusions you form from a combination of wishful thinking and tinfoil hat websites!.
Jennifer Morahasy is a scientist, active in the climate field, and competent to make the comments she made on the rebuttal of Foster et al by Mclean and co-authors.
Robert Carter summed up the situation, in his explanation in 2009 to the Labor government as to the futility of a carbon tax: a non-solution to a problem which did not exist:. He said:
“Get this. First, there has been no recent global warming in the common meaning of the term, for world average temperature has cooled for the last ten years. Furthermore, since 1940 the earth has warmed for nineteen years and cooled for forty-nine, the overall result being that global average temperature is now about the same as it was in 1940.
Second, this lack of overall warming over the last sixty-eight years happened despite an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide of more than 20 per cent; which is actually no surprise, because, notwithstanding that it is a greenhouse gas, the increase in the warming effect of carbon dioxide beyond 1940 levels is diminishingly small.( What Carter means is that the effectiveness of carbon dioxide lessens as its volume increases. A doubling of volume does not double its effect)
Third, by planetary accident, in comparison with most of the Earth’s geological history we live today in a world that is in a state of carbon dioxide starvation, especially for optimal plant growth; just ask the commercial tomato growers who use enhanced levels of carbon dioxide in their greenhouses to expedite crop growth.”
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/4/a-new-policy-direction-for-climate-change

Try to learn something about the science of climate, Aiden, and be careful not to trust the IPCC. Pachauri has resigned as head, so I suppose they are looking for another crooked railway engineer, but one who will not sexually molest the staff.
Of course the climate-gate miscreants are fraudulent. The "hearings" arranged by the UN were simply attempts at whitewash, which gave no proper consideration to the animus evidenced by the emails.

Struth, Leo, I spent half my last post explaining facts that you'd dismissed as nonsense because you were too lazy to even try to understand the science, and now you accuse me of having no science?

It's certainly not wishful thinking that makes me believe anthropogenic global warming is real. I, and indeed everyone else, would probably be much better off if it wasn't. But there's overwhelming evidence that it is, and those who claim otherwise tend to avoid scrutiny (even after their claims are published) or just ignore the facts completely and just post spurious claims on their websites in the hope that people like you will assume them to be true because they want them to be true.

I never claimed Jennifer Morahasy wasn't a scientist. But the page you linked to made it clear it was a blog. It contained her opinion rather than actual science.

As for Robert Carter's claims, they're demonstrably false. Temperatures have been rising significantly and still are: see http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf

Can I take it from what you've quoted that you now accept the facts about atmospheric CO2 that you dismissed as "nonsense" a few hours ago?

Try to learn something about the science of climate, Aiden, and be careful not to trust the IPCC. Pachauri has resigned as head, so I suppose they are looking for another crooked railway engineer, but one who will not sexually molest the female staff.Carter is a reputable source, on climate science.

When asked for science to justify your point of view, showing a measurable effect of human emissions on climate,you were unable to reference it because it does not exist, and you referred us to the IPCC. This is a body which has made predictions of warming based on the CO2 content of the atmosphere.It feeds science into computer models, and the results are invariably wrong At a time when the CO2 content has built up to an allegedly dangerous level, global warming stopped. Their understanding of the science is flawed.
Their “science” on human caused warming, when available science cannot show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, is that it is 95% certain.They originally said it was 99% certain, and for undisclosed reasons revised it down recently. They do not seem to understand that they are meant to present science, not answer questions as if they are playing dice in a casino.
The human effect is trivial, which is the reason that it is not measurable.
This is the fact you refuse to acknowledge, through ignorance or dishonesty, but you can refer us to no science which shows otherwise..
A pertinent comment on climategate is:
“Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.
“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones,
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

Leo,
Considering that you're so pig ignorant of the science that I have to keep explaining it to you in this thread, your calls for me to learn about the science of climate are pure hypocrisy!

Am I right in thinking you think a "reputable scientist" is one who tells you what you want to hear? You whinge when I don't cite sources, you whinge when I refer you to a serious criticism of a paper you link to, and now you're whinging about my linking to the IPCC's report of the science!

You have no evidence at all for your claim that the human effect is trivial. Considering the huge increase in greenhouse gases that human activity has resulted in, I regard your claim as extraordinary.

Science of chaotic systems like the atmosphere deals with probabilities. That's the way the world works; it does not equate to playing dice.

No, aiden, the language of the IPCC is that of playing dice.
Robert Carter is not the only honest climate scientist.
David Archibald writes about the failure of the world to warm.
“Global warming alarmism has been compared to the Y2K scare. I think that a more apposite analogy is the internet bubble on the world’s stockmarkets. In that bubble, tens of thousands of the world’s most intelligent and highly paid people succumbed to a mass hysteria. T
All the institutions which should be guarding us against the climate change rent seekers and carpetbaggers have abrogated their responsibility. The worst, and by this I mean the CSIRO, are actively conniving against the interests of the Australian people. Our largest companies have become rent seekers, promoting their version of clean coal technology. This perverse ideology has corrupted so many. The money changers are in the temple. The story now gets even more bizarre, because all the wailing from the CSIRO and others is in the face of a temperature that has not changed. Figure 12 shows lower troposphere temperature anomalies in the southern hemisphere since satellite records began in 1979. This is the part of the world we live in. There is no doubt that this temperature record is correct as it agrees with weather balloon data. While the southern hemisphere, lower troposphere temperature is not quite as constant as the Northern Star, the trend is flat. Antarctica has cooled appreciably over the same period. In the Northern Hemisphere, the United States and Greenland were both warmer in the 1930s than they are now. The ability to believe in global warming in the face of a failure to warm, proving that theory wrong, demonstrates an enormous capacity for self-delusion
http://www.davidarchibald.info/papers/Failure%20To%20Warm.pdf

You are unable to refer us to any science showing any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
I have not whinged , aiden. Ignorance and dishonesty is all that I expect from a fraud backer.I merely demonstrated you to be bereft of science, with no valid basis.
Just accept the science, and cease support of the fraud.