Aidan,

Are you sure about who changed it from global warming to climate change. It is my understanding that the IPCC and its disciples made the change after they found out that there had been no warming for 15 years.

Leo The measurable effect on climate is the Co2 level, and that is caused by human beings. Yes you have a category in my climate change deniers. You have to come up with more than “not man made” So what is causing climate change in your mind. Is it written in a book some where.

It looks like we are set for a string of more compassionate govt; on climate change for many years to come. Now that the goon has gone.

Ocean acidification is the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere. An estimated 30–40% of the carbon dioxide released by humans into the atmosphere dissolves into oceans, rivers and lakes.

I don’t know what your problem is with climate change. I do have some ideas though.

Tombee

My views on this are very similar to yours, I think. There is real evidence that human activity is causing climate change, and a strong basis in risk management to take measures to prevent it even if this is not 100% certain. But the exaggerations, misrepresentations and bullying attempts to silence dissent by some AGW proponents have seriously backfired and undermined the credibility of their cause.

ttbn, the change in the use the word 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' is well documented and was proposed by US Republican advisor Frank Luntz in the early 2000s. George Bush thereafter used the phrase and it has been used quite successfully ever since.

It has been wildly succesful of course, because now those ignorant of the history of the usage say 'of course the climate changes, it always has!' as if that's some kind of putdown to the proponents of what used to be called 'global warming'.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

Computer models attempting to apply the laboratory science of the effect of co2 on climate have failed, doog. You have no science to support your belief in the climate fraud asserting that human emissions of CO2 cause global warming. Scientists have had to back off: “They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Worlds-climate-scientists-confess-Global-warming-just-QUARTER-thought--computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html#ixzz3nCC1dbKi
There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, doog. You do not have it, and the IPCC does not have it. The human effect is trivial, and not measurable, so the assertion of the IPCC is fraudulent.
The oceans are not acidic. Where their ph level is lowered , they are less alkaline, but they are not acidic.

//The oceans are not acidic. Where their ph level is lowered , they are less alkaline, but they are not acidic.//

Now you're just splitting hairs. It doesn't matter whether you call it 'acidification' or 'decreasing alkalinity', the effect is still the same: the hydronium ion concentration of the oceans is increasing, which has the potential to play havoc with marine ecosystems. Surely that is of more importance than semantics?