The science of climate change has been in evidence for many more decades than the arguments put forward by deniers.
Scientists from ExxonMobil in the 1970s and 1980s were in agreement with the view of anthropogenic climate change. Management of ExxonMobil set about to undermine the very science their scientists had come up with.

CO2 is taken up by Oceans, as well as, the atmosphere; CO2 plus salt water create a weak acid.

Comments about Professor Jagadish Shula are a diversion, it has been the Los Angeles Times, Union of Concerned Scientists and Inside Climate News that through investigations have shown that ExxonMobil to have a case to answer.

Matt, you make many statements, but provide no evidence through references.
There is no climate war, climate scientists agree with the view that man has an impact on climate. Please name a peak scientific body that does not agree with anthropogenic climate change

Oceans are more to do with biology than physics.

Physics is not biology.
AGW climate models have been developed using physics, not biology.
Climate models do not include impact of warmth in ocean algae.
Can anyone prove that as incorrect?

In AGW associated science, sea level rise is being measured in water where nutrient pollution and over abundance of nutrient proliferated algae is located, or has been. Often available nutrient becomes exhausted, algae dies and falls away leaving the water very very clear and warm for some time.

Sea level of warmer clear ocean water of the East Australian Current streams south from algae inundated equatorial waters where it has been, and the stream is higher in the center than at the edges.
Warmth near the center is more insulated by the outer water, and the vertical shape toward the center of the stream is described by oceanographers as optical.

The whole ocean level is not rising at the same time.
Sea level rise apart from tides is only where algae associated warm water is or has been located. But physics is not seeing impact of algae, nor are flat earth type CO2ist's.

Some atolls have sunk down due to tectonic movement.
Some atolls or parts of atolls are being washed away and are not naturally rebuilding because so much coral is dead and coral rubble supply is reduced or non-existent. But this is not broadcast e.g. by ABC 'news'.

I have a 1943 photo of US soldiers crawling ashore in water lapping a Pacific Islands shore and shore erosion under tree roots can be clearly seen, and is the same type of erosion as modern day AGW photos show.

Historically unprecedented dead coral is widespread, everywhere other divers tell me (I am careful not to generalize).
That dead coral coincides with fish stock devastation that coincides with nutrient overload pollution that coincides with over abundance of algae killing seagrass food web nurseries.

Science has to change and include ocean plant matter in climate science, if not then ocean ecosystem devastation and climate change and consequences will continue and worsen.

Hi JF,

I was horrified to read about "shore erosion under tree roots". No ! How could that be ?! Has that ever occurred before in human history ? Never any storm damage ?

Tell you what: take a photo of mangrove roots at low tide, then one at high tide. Notice the difference ? 50-100 cm sea-level rise, in barely a few hours ! At this rate, we'll all be perched on top of Uluru within a decade.

You could use those photos at the next IPCC Conference :)

Thanks anyway,

Joe

Hi Joe,
Yes, LOL.
Cheers.

Matt, stated that there is very little extra CO2 created through the burning of CO2 in the atmosphere. On that basis, it is perfectly safe for healthy people to inject themselves with 1 mil of insulin (0.01) or one ml of tiger snake venom. One ml is an extremely small measure in comparison to the size of an adult human body. There has been an increase in the level of CO2 from around 270 parts per million to 400 ppm since the Industrial Revolution; about a 30% increase. A 1 ml injection of whatever substance into an adult body is an incredibly small percentage in comparison to the percentage of increase in CO2.
Methane in the atmosphere is measured in parts per billion; yet, it impacts on climate when measures increase. The question is, whether anybody would be game enough to inject themselves with a ml of insulin or tiger snake venom?

Matt, please provide evidence that methane is not a dangerous gas in relation to climate.

Deniers get very excited about the huge el nino of '97, even though higher temperatures have been measured since. The MET suggests that the global average temperature will increase by over 1C for 2015.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34763036

Quite an inexplicable occurrence was cyclone Chapala which hit Yemen, the first time in recorded history for such a storm to impact on Yemen. Cyclone Patricia did huge damage to South Carolina. Meteorologist Steve Bowen suggested that it was the sixth 1 in 1,000 year statistical weather event in the US since 2010.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/2015-a-very-bad-year-for-the-global-warming-policy-foundation/

Photos provide a strong message:

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/multimedia/Severe-Drought-in-Brazilian-Amazon-Leaves-Boats-High-and-Dry-20151019-0044.html

https://theconversation.com/the-oceans-are-changing-too-fast-for-marine-life-to-keep-up-48977

It should be obvious that the problem is the politicisation of science.

Even Matthew Ridley participates in this error by using the ambiguous term "science" without distinguishing between:
1. science meaning the scientific method, and
2. science meaning the vested interests of the vast class of dependent professional intellectual arse-lickers to government.

If government hadn't been wasting billions in funding science -either kind - in the first place, the whole hysterial hoo-haa would never have happened.

The statists never take account of the lost value, in terms of real human welfare, from the billions and trillions they flush down the toilet. They *always* employ double standards in their evaluations, or rather assumptions, about policy, and always irrationally favouring the State without acknowledging, or even identifying the assumptions they sneak in.

All the positive science, at best, could only amount to a conclusion to the effect that temperatures may be going up.

This would leave entirely unanswered and untouched by science the all-important questions :
1. whether the change would be a net benefit or detriment or neither, and what the balance would be for whom, when, where, how, and how we would know, and
2. whether any policy would be worthwhile, when all the downsides both ways are taken into account; and how the counterfactual scenarios would be known, calculated, and evaluated.

These so-called "scientists" are in the realm of pure superstitious state-worship. For example, at no stage have I seen any of them admit that science does not and cannot supply value judgments and this invalidates their entire argument; or make any honest and competent attempt to come to terms with the issues of value.

At no stage has any of them supplied any theory of the State, or of value, that would justify ANY of their policy proposals.