Eyes wide shut eh JBowyer.

LALALALALALALA I won't believe anything you say, LALALALALALA!

And you guys talk about 'climate change' being a religion?

wow

This thread really shows how willfully you will ignore information if it doesn't fit your narrative.

This article is a sad collection of tired old anti-science memes and half truths. It jumps from statements about the last 10 years to hundreds of millions of years and "It's been hotter before, so everything must be natural" kind of schtick.

It's time to grow up.

This is known physics that was discovered nearly 2 centuries years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fourier#Discovery_of_the_greenhouse_effect

Watch the candle demonstrate the heat diverting properties of CO2. Starts 90 seconds in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw

Mathematics around more CO2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

Global Warming = ocean warming
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2201/

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

Sea levels have risen 6cm or an inch since 1998...
http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

...and is probably going to hit one metre in 100 years
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2329/

More severe cyclones
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/RisingCost/rising_cost5.php

It will make a wetter atmosphere, which makes storms worse and the mother-of-all feedback loops
http://earthsky.org/earth/frank-wentz-will-global-warming-bring-more-rainfall

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/14/1321481/-Global-Warming-is-increasing-moisture-in-Earth-s-atmosphere-driving-Mother-of-all-Feedback-Loops

Rising oceans could see 100 million people on the move
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/critical-issues-sea-level-rise/

Bugsy,

Your sarcasm shows that you hate to be questioned. This is typical of the Left. You also infere that I am too lazy to do my own research - I'm lazy, you are on the ball. Again, typical of the Left. The fact is, you were the one doing the preaching; it is your job to prove your assertions, not mine. You also infere that I did not, or would not, give your 'proof' more than a quick scan. Again, typical. Find fault in your opponent; make him feel inadequate, and he will go away. Your sort will never understand that your sayso is not automatically accepted just because you are sure that you are right, and anyone who doesn't agree with you is some sort of ignoramus or bad person. As it is, your new 'proof' is more from the same suspect. You, not I, are the one who needs to to broaden your horizons, and stop looking for only propaganda that suits your own limited ideas. In this case, you allowed your how-dare-you-question-me attitude to prevent your answering a couple of polite questions.

The real question needing an answer from the alarmists, is not whether or not there is global warming, climate change or whatever, nor if it is man made. The real question is: where is the evidence that the billions spent so far on research, subsidies paid to rent-seekers, increasingly expensive electricity from inefficient windmills and solar, will have any effect on climate.

I didn't infer that you were lazy ttbn, I am out and out asserting it.

This was evidenced by asking questions about the validity of the information I provided that you could have answered yourself by spending a couple of minutes on google.

Even your last question was a paraphrase of the strategies outlined in the document that I linked to. Nothing has changed in 13 years has it? All the old arguments are still there, still being trotted out by the conspiracy theorists.

And please spare me the old trope 'typical of the left'. This has come to signify that you are divided along party/political lines and believe that everyone else is too. Lazy thinking again.

It may come as some surprise to a lot of the old coots here, but I was once a paid up member of the Liberal Party.

Shock horror.

>>People who put forward this view use the absence of predicted increases as proof the increases were really there, but in masked or modified form! To them, the repeated, consistent and egregiously mistaken predictions made by climate models are true no matter what because [anthropogenic] global warming is true no matter what. <<

Does the author even understand that most of the 4 Hiroshima bombs per second that AGW retains actually ends up in the oceans, and that this is most apparent when the oceans release this extra energy?

(Slaps hand to forehead).