The science of climate change is not a matter of opinion anymore than is medical science. We are not dealing with a matter of belief but a matter of facing the facts confronting us in terms of the observed global effects of climate change. Climatology embraces a number of scientific disciplines which collectively have isolated the facts relating to the changes and the causes. I have recently been diagnosed with prostate cancer, am I going to debate the medical science because I don't like the diagnosis? Of course not. Matt you are clearly an intelligent person so perhaps your failure to "understand" certain attitudes as you state can be overcome by a completely objective reassessment of the facts about what is now happening on the planet and the science which seeks to explain it. When you have done this in good conscience get of the fence and see whether you would write the same opinion piece.
Denis White

Hi Loudmouth,

I never claimed the hiatus was due to sunspot activity, and considering the previously observed breakdown (and also the satellite measurements) I find that explanation very unlikely. A much more credible explanation is that the oceans absorbed more heat. And the more that occurs, the more sea levels will rise.

"Has it escaped your notice that the vast majority of major corporations have got on board the AGW gravy boat ?"
That is an extraordinary claim that should require extraordinary evidence, yet I've seen no evidence whatsoever. Many corporations acknowledge the existence of AGW, as the evidence for it is very clear to those who look objectively. But there's no gravy boat or train; it doesn't bring much in the way of new opportunities to make money. And much of the response we see from major corporations turns out to be greenwash advertising.

Meanwhile coal and oil companies have an enormous financial incentive to deny AGW, and have spent huge amounts of money trying to fool the public into thinking it doesn't exist.

Thank you for the article, Matt.

If you hate the big corporations, then be a "man" and state so, fight them, boycott them - but don't beat around the bush blaming an innocent small molecule instead!

We have seen the 'consensus' science with evolution and now gw. Both frauds that make thinking men look like fools.

Loudmouth my comment was around Matt's bring up of

"James Hansen, former head of Nasa’s Goddard Institute and the man whose congressional testimony in 1988 kick-started the whole debate, said a few years back, of fossil fuel company executives: ‘In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature’."

If people know what they are doing causes harm but seek to hide the fact that is where James is coming from. I'm merely reminding all that corporations do lie about stuff.

Runner I find it hard to believe your ancestors where apes, I would have said some sort of invertebrate in your case.

An inconvenient question or two might lead to inconvenient truth and proper solutions to change in climate caused by human activity.

Why did AGW and IPCC and Kyoto associated science not measure and assessed photosynthesis-linked warmth in ocean algae plant matter proliferated by land use and sewage nutrient overload - pollution?

Can any scientist establish ocean and lake algae does not absorb solar warmth?