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.