And of course being a member of the Family First Party qualifies Rod McGarvie to attempt to discredit the findings of scientists who have spent their professional lives studying climate. I assume Rod has similarly spent years studying the effects of CO2 in our atmosphere, has studied all the important papers written on climate change and has visited the world's climate hotspots such as the Antarctic, the Arctic, Greenland and the Pacific Islands. Otherwise he would know that he is completely unqualified to comment... When I get sick, I visit a doctor. When I need assistance with my tax I go to an accountant. When I want help with the law I see a lawyer. When I want to understand the environment, I visit a politician?

How did Rod Mcgarvie get to this parallel world, where there is no climate change and everything in the garden is lovely?
It sounds a delightful place, somewhere that you can change facts to fit your dreams.
Now back in the real world us poor mortals have to contend with the actual fact of the artic ice diminishing, the ice chap on Greenland diminishing and a few other quite common occurrences in a "static" climate.

i have met Rod McGarvie & he is a decent, honest man. if the Liberal party wasn't being moved towards closet communism by Malcolm Polly Waffle Rudd then he might still be an LNP member. But in this case Rod i think we need a wider inquiry into ANTI-socialism. Which could include committees of both upper & lower houses into UN-Australian activities & a matching Royal Commission. Science is just one example of communist infiltration white anting the land of OZ.

Chris S, surely you jest. The lowest form of life on earth is a left wing academic or "scientist". The Poles are NOT melting, the oceans are not rising, the "scientists" lied for research grants.

imacentristmoderate; keep taking the pills and all will be well.

Yes, as much as I am not really interested in the subject of climate change, it always amuses me that non-scientists can come out and say all the scientists are wrong about climate change because (a) God is the only person who can change the climate, or (b) because they say so - no evidence needed!

Sorry, but those reasons are rubbish because there is no evidence there are any gods, and no evidence any of you have any idea what you are talking about.
Who to believe...scientists, or those who imagine there are invisible people in the sky who telepathically tell them what to believe?

Robert LePage, I think he needs to up his dose.

Family first eh...what's next creation science to be taught?
Rod you need to buy yourself a calendar and read the date it's 2015 not 1315.

McGarvie has confused the science with the alarmism. On every matter of wide public and political interest some level of alarmism always develops, or is created, in association with the various agendas. Climate change is no different. But the unfamiliarity of science seems to make some folk more sensitive to climate alarmist controversies. Please don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater. Climate science has plenty of uncertainties (they are clearly defined in everything the scientists write on the subject) but the likelihood that carbon dioxide affects climate is not one of them, at least for the moment. If the precise numbers do turn out to be wrong the scientists will be the first to tell us, not the politicians, not the environmentalists, not the many vested interests. A Royal Commission won’t help.

Chris S, Robert LePage, Suseonline

Guys go back and look at what McGarvie has written. He doesn't say much about the science at all. He's looking at what it's achieved and forecast to date which, as he points out correctly, is absolutely nothing. Clearly there has been no major increases in temperatures.. this business about record warming during an el Nino year only underlines that temperatures are, at best, creeping up. In addition, various pronouncements by global warming ideogogues - Tim Flannery take a bow - about rainfall declining, snow vanishing, dams emptying and the arctic melting have all been flatly contradicted by events.

Sure the science says one thing, so why isn't it happening?

Rather than face a Royal Commission, the alarmists and people who think that they can actually influence the the climate (by strealing our money) should be put on trial for fraud.

For those who are still bleating about there being no global warming, could this possibly change your minds?
Global Analysis - August 2015
2015 year-to-date temperatures versus previous years

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2015/8/supplemental/page-3

Robert LePage, telling deliberate premeditated lies will get you nowhere fast with me.

Suseonline, the closet communist speaks, Darling the IPCC is a POLITICAL body, it is NOT scientific. Polar ice is growing, the oceans are NOT rising, Polar bears are breeding, NOT going extinct.

Cobber the hound, this may come as a shock to you but NOT all Christians believe in creation. Darwin was himself Christian. Then there is the Christian Philosophy of Scientific Common Sense Realism.

Scientific Common Sense Realism, also known as the Scottish School of Common Sense, is a school of philosophy that originated in the ideas of Scottish philosophers Thomas Reid, Adam Ferguson and Dugald Stewart during the 18th century Scottish Enlightenment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Common_Sense_Realism

Tombee, surely you jest, there is mountains of evidence to prove a case of scientific fraud even worse than the Tobacco companies did. The sooner these criminals go to jail the better.

Curmudgeon, too true, the settled science shows the exact opposite of what they said, jail the criminals for scientific fraud & misappropriation of tax payers funds, now.

Imacentristmoderate, dearest, I didn't know you were a scientist?
While all else say that the arctic ice is lessening, you are saying it is not?

Where is your proof?
Just because you say all these LOUD comments, doesn't make them true...

"When will scientists review the underlying assumptions and biases on which their climate change theories and models rely?"

Yes. It's way past time. The real deniers are those who keep pushing the nonsense. They are the deniers of the relevant facts. They are Climate Cultists. They oppose analysis that doesn't support their religious like beliefs.

The relevant facts that people should be aware of are:

1. the planet is in a coldhouse phase. In fact we are in only the third cold house phase in more than half a billion years (the time when multi-cell animal life has thrived on Earth).

2. There have been no ice sheets at either pole for 75% of the past half billion years, demonstrating the planet is in a coldhouse phase and this is a period of unusually cold.

3. The planet has been cooling from its normal tempts for the past 50 million years

4. Life thrives when the planet is warmer and struggles when colder.

5. The climate does not change in smooth curves as projected by the GCM's. The climate changes abruptly; always has always will.

6. We are currently past the peak of the current interglacial. If not for humans' GHG emissions the next abrupt change would be to cooler - that's catastrophic. Warming is not catastrophic, as clearly demonstrated by the paleo evidence

7. Our GHG emissions are reducing the risk of the next abrupt climate change - we are delaying the next abrupt cooling and reducing its severity. This has to be balanced against the risks of potential (but temporary) increased warming (the long term cooling to the next ice age will continue, and the sequence of ice ages and interglacials will continue until the plates realign so North and South America are separated and ocean currents can flow around the world in low latitudes).

People interested in the climate debate are urged to do their own reality checks, not just confirm their biases by reading only the doctrine according to the preachers of the Greens religion.

There has never been a royal commission into the idiotic theory of evolution so you have no chance with the warmist alarmist. They just demonise people speaking the truth, ignore all the obvious contradictions and pat each other on the back while the public is continually fleeced to promote their fallacies. Well I suppose we spend billions on trying to find aliens on Mars while much of the world starves. True scientist must be so embarrassed to be drowned out by self interested pseudo scientist claiming some intellectual superiority. I sometimes wonder whether our Creator laughs or cries at such fools.

A rather trite piece, written by a would-be pollie,that does not take in any of the scientific facts. Climate-change deniers certainly have done a great job in obfuscating real issues. Please read the following informative article: "Diabolical: Why we have failed to address Climate Change?" by Robert Manne. It is an article that does address these issues, and more importantly it tries to respond to WHY deniers have been so successful in creating this "apparent" scientific impasse!

https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/december/1448888400/robert-manne/diabolical

Chris S

So if I want to understand the science - and eco-politics - of climate change, I should ask this bunch?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiYZxOlCN10

Digging up millions of tonnes of fossil-fuels daily and combusting them daily, over a couple of centuries, in conjunction with decreasing the earths vegetation (especially deforestation) has to have a cumulative effect, albeit a slow one.

Yes, there have been some outlandish, irresponsible, polemic predictions, but that does not deny climate change.

While it will be interesting to see increased farming in previously difficult to farm areas, we will also see increased extreme events.

We will survive, but we will need to adapt.
.

runner,
Evolution was a theory in the 19th century. Evolution was proven in the 20th century with animal and plant breeding studies, and the discovery of DNA and how DNA changes between generations and as populations change.

I'd welcome a royal commission if only to let morons like the Author to finally look at the incontrovertible evidence!

Such as the sun has been in a waning phase since the mid seventies (NASA) even as the Alaskan and Siberian tundra melt for the first time in known human history. Arctic ice continues to melt at unprecedented pace and a new summertime northwest passage tells us something new is happening, as does unprecedented heat waves and droughts in places not ever having known them before.

Just look at the plight of some of our cattle producers in formerly permanently green northern Queensland!

You'd think, given the maniacal carry on, that decarbonising the economy would hurt us economically, instead of providing the largest economic boost we can envisage!

Yes let's have a royal commision if only to let these ideologues know how utterly ignorant, stupid and dumber than dumb they really are.

If a warmer sun didn't cause it, what do you think created 2015 as the warmest year on record?

Clearly the ignoramuses among us just don't understand how much as little as a fraction of a degree alters climate outcomes for the worse.

I mean cyclone Tracey tore down Darwin, but wait a while, you ain't seen nothing yet!

2C will get you 5C, thanks to the extra released formerly frozen methane and climate change the like of what no one living has seen, with a green England turned into a wind swept salt laden wasteland, regularly swept by salt laden winds in excess of 300 klms ph!

And if you think that's bad, wait until you see what nature has in store for the rest of us! As attested by the historical paleontological record!

And where plant life can't grow neither can anything that depends on it including all oxygen breathing carbon based life forms!

Yes, please bring on the royal commision.
Rhrosty.

McReal

'runner,
Evolution was a theory in the 19th century. Evolution was proven in the 20th century with animal and plant breeding studies, and the discovery of DNA and how DNA changes between generations and as populations change.'

keep dreaming. Whether it is fossils, dna or observation the belief system of evolution is unproven and totally fraudulent. Cats still don't produce dogs and certainly apes don't produce humans. Sure fill in the gaps with fantasy but don't call it science.

About the author says it all.

"Cats still don't produce dogs and certainly apes don't produce humans" -- because those species have diverged from each other during the long, slow process of Evolution.

Hard to believe that in 2015 such people are still about.
I guess it all appears much clearer with your head stuck in the ground (or stuck somewhere else...........)

' because those species have diverged from each other during the long, slow process of Evolution.' Yeah like man made gw eh McReal. No wonder you r so easily deceived.

imacentristmoderate meet runner, i think he is in your corner not ours!

Runner as silly as it is can you please point to a book about evolution that says "Cats produce dogs"?

Peter Lang: I've said it before you've have the whole of climate change licked , can you please move on to cancer or something. One sweep of your mind you'd have to whole field worked out the the answer/cures would flow from you like the water of the Nile.

Seeing as Runner introduced the topic of evolution why not try these references which could collectively be titled You Say You Want Some Evolution
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/ScientificProof/evolutionmansacrificeworld.html
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/ScientificProof/fiveevolutionarystatesoftrueman.html
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/ScientificProof/universelaughingmatter.html

Suse,
Since neither the article nor any other post mentioned the deity your polemic is rather superfluous. But you've done a marvelous job of destroying an argument no one made. Or were you just trying to avoid the point?

"Cats still don't produce dogs".
Anyone you thinks this is an argument against evolution clearly understand that theory in the same way as a 1 yr old understands Linear A. Fair dinkum, where do these people come from!

The author isn't making claims that he's a scientist. If you notice all the text in the article with hyperlinks, you'll see that the author is refering to findings from scientists.

All those here asserting that scientists say this and scientists say that just don't get it. Which scientists? These are not a homogenous group. There is significant dispute among scientists on this issue. But I understand the impulse to simply refuse to think for yourselves and to rely on the claims of some that this fabled beast called 'Science' says xyz.

A Royal Commission won't work and won't happen. This is a government which refused to even inquire into claims that the BOM had fudged some temperature records so its not about to look into the validity of alarmist claims. Even if it did and even if this RC found against alarmism, it would prove nothing and mean nothing.

* Has the climate changed/warmed over the past 170yrs? Yes. And I'd venture that a vanishingly small number of scientist, and none that I'd take notice of, dispute that.

* Is there agreement as to the extent of the change? Not really although again the (vast?) majority of experts involved would accept a number between 0.7 and 1 degree C.

* Was the rise caused by man? Again the vast majority of experts would say that some portion was caused by man's emissions. But the percentage is again heavily disputed.

* Has the rise been detrimental to man? Again some dispute but its difficult to argue that things are worse now than in 1850.

But the important issues are the future. some scientists seek to make predictions about where we'll be in 50/100/200/1000 years. But how good are those predictions? So far they've been abysmal.
This is where the real issue lays. Alarmism, which the author wants to put in the dock, sees things going downhill from next tuesday week. Skeptics are either in the camp that says that most warming was caused by natural effects and these will or already have reversed so nothing to worry about, or the camp that says that the warming will not be all that bad and probably beneficial.
(Or that we don't know enough to decide either way).

Something to ponder. Today Canberra-based think tank Global Carbon Project announced that emissions feel in 2015 as compared to 2014.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-08/china-a-key-factor-in-global-emissions-fall-in-2015/7009360
Which of these fabled 'scientists' predicted that? And if they didn't see it coming one year out, how do they and we know that they have the slightest understanding of where emissions will be in 2100. And if they don't know that, how can they know what the temperatures will be in 2100.

My pet theory is that the whole thing will eventually blow over because emissions will decline, or stop rising around 2035 as renewables and other non-fossil fuel energy sources become competitive with coal/oil without the need for subsidy and that this will happen irrespective of what governments do

The carpet has all but been pulled from under anthropogenic climate change deniers.
ExxonMobil have repudiated the policy of the Republican Party in relation to their denier policy.

ExxonMobil indicate that dangerous temperatures that scientists have been commenting on should be accepted.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/even-exxonmobil-says-climate-change-is-real-so-why-wont-the-gop/2015/12/06/913e4b12-9aa6-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/07/3728921/exxonmobil-warns-catastrophic-global-warming/

The first sentences from ThinK Progress:

"It’s a Through-The-Looking-Glass world. The Washington Post reports Sunday that ExxonMobil has a far saner view of global warming than the national Republican party.
Fred Hiatt, the paper’s centrist editorial page editor, drops this bombshell:
With no government action, Exxon experts told us during a visit to The Post last week, average temperatures are likely to rise by a catastrophic (my word, not theirs) 5 degrees Celsius, with rises of 6, 7 or even more quite possible."

mhaze,

" * Has the rise been detrimental to man? Again some dispute but its difficult to argue that things are worse now than in 1850.
"

Please provide persuasive evidence to support that assertion.

There was/is a very interesting truth-telling item titled Corporate Cash Skews Science by John Ross featured in the Higher Education section of the Australian newspaper on Dec 2nd.

The 2nd paragraph reads: " An analysis by Yale University sociologist Justin Farrell has found the most influential climate deniers are those backed by key corporate donors. Their views are rehashed - sometimes word-perfect - by media and politicians.

Speaking of Royal Commissions into destructive policy decisions by Australian governments. A decision that resulted in the most human deaths, and which resulted in the highest number of injured and permanently traumatized human beings (and of their families too). And which wasted billions of dollars, and will continue to do so. And which provided the catalyst for the now never-ending war on terror, and of course the creation of ISIS (or whatever it is called).

Shouldnt there be a Royal Commission into the decision by a certain lying rodent and his government to participate in the coalition of the killing illegal (under international law) invasion of Iraq.

Daffy Duck

But according to you, rights are whatever the government says they are, remember? And according to you, governments have a right to unlimited power, remember?

" An analysis by Yale University sociologist Justin Farrell has found the most influential climate deniers are those backed by key corporate donors. Their views are rehashed - sometimes word-perfect - by media and politicians."

Nobody denies the climate you fool. In case you haven't noticed, governments have just spent billions and trillions of dollars on a theory of climate that all their legions of interested parasitic "scientists" are unable to prove, and which is disproved by one pair of data: emissions have gone up and up and up, while temperatures have not. This means that ALL the climate models you implicitly trust based on nothing but government authority were and are FLATLY INCORRECT.

Any way you try to spin it, your theory is simply wrong.

All
The great revolution of scientific thinking was to replace the open-ended unquestioning credulity in mere authority that you warmists are placing in the State. Look at what you've just written you fools. You're openly arguing that no-one has a right to question the government, and that truth is presumptively whatever the government says it is.

In every thread, you enter the discussion having simply assumed all the issues in your own favour. When challenged to actually prove what you are saying, you give us a fit of spiteful name-calling and question-begging, and then slink off only to re-appear re-running all the same flawed *unscientific assumptions*

Suseonline, lying comes easier to women doesn't it? why do you hate your children so much? how poor do you want them to be?

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/science_nutshell.php

Yuri, but your article is written by a communist & ALL communists lie.

Alice Thermopolis, but they are communists & therefore lying.

McReal, but we are already seeing less storms that are less intense.

Rhosty, the weather is improving, higher rainfall & milder storms.

ateday, your point being?

Cobber the hound, this may come as a shock to you but while i DO believe in evolution, being an enlightened, conservative, protesting Christian means that i don't automatically believe runner is an idiot for believing in creation. He may indeed be right & even if he is wrong, creation theory is NOT hurting anybody, no more than evolution theory is not hurting anybody. it is not worth starting WW3 over is it?

Daffy Duck, face palm, so what? neither creationists nor evolutionists are proposing we ALL pay a tax on the air we breath & give the cash to the richest families on earth so that they can gamble with OUR money.

mhaze, good comment till the end, scientific fraud with tax payers money is a serious offence or should be & the criminals should be jailed.

ant, WOW like WOW, one of the worlds biggest, nastiest multinationals wants to make workers pay a tax on the air we breath & steal the money with carbon derivatives. are you proud of yourself?

Daffy Duck, thank you for proving my point, big banksters want to steal OUR money via a tax on the air we breath & YOU are betraying the workers. YOU also believe we should do nothing to protect people from fascism.

Jardine K Jardine, "repeat the big lie, until it becomes the truth" Lenin. Daffy Duck is a disciple of the radical, extreme, left wing religious cult. he is totally brain washed, just like ALL other leftists. pity him as i do.

Peter Lang,

Really? You want evidence that things are better than in 1850? I don't know where to begin. I could probably go on for days:

* Life expectancy. There are many different indicators but (for example) the UNPD 1999 report (I'm not sure if its available digitally) shows life expectancy at birth rising from around 38 yrs in 1850 (it was probably unchanged since 1200) to 78yrs in 2000. This is averaged world-wide. The percentage improvement was even greater in the developing countries and better still for sub-Saharan Africa even allowing for AIDS.

* Average per capita calorie consumption has risen dramatically as food production has improved in extent, yield and quality. Current average intake is 2800 calories world-wide having risen by close on 25% in just the past 50 years. Data for 1850 is harder to come by but a figure of around 1800 calories seems about right. (Source: FAO report 2001). The percentage improvement for developing and undeveloped nations is greater still but you'd appreciate that data about, for example, Africa in 1850 is scarce. But since 1960 calories intake per capita for the developing world has risen from 1900 calories to 2600 calories. This is despite the massive increase in population. Another indicator is the fall in prices eg wheat prices are now a mere 10% of the price in 1850 (FAO 2000 report).

Statistics can't really capture the other improvements in welfare over the period. For women, the threat of dying while giving birth is virtually gone. Equally, their lives are totally changed due to labour saving devices such that they are now free to pursue careers and a life beyond the home and family. This is a first in human history.

Its impossible to cover all the ways the world is so much better since 1850 in just 350 characters - 350 pages or even 350 books wouldn't be sufficient. But this gives a flavour of this golden age.

"The carpet has all but been pulled from under anthropogenic climate change deniers."

ant,

Have you read the source documents yet? Scared of what you'll find?

You keep saying this has pulled the rug from under so-called deniers but never explained how. Is that just a line you read in one of the activist publications pushing this silliness?

Suppose, just suppose, that this is all correct and that Exxon did hide data and push alternate views they didn't believe. They didn't, but just pretend for a moment. How does that revelation pull the rug from under so-called deniers? If they didn't take any notice of what Exxon said in the past, if they based their 'deniership' on verifiable data outside of what Exxon offered, if they looked at all the data from a multitude of sources and made the only logical conclusion that its all a case of mass hysteria, then why would Exxon's recanting, if they did such a thing (which they didn't), why would that matter to such deniers?

Why?

( I actually know what your answer will be but it'll be fun to see your logical gymnastics just the same.)

Mhaze,

I beg your pardon. I misread your comment where you said:

" * Has the rise been detrimental to man? Again some dispute but its difficult to argue that things are worse now than in 1850."

mhaze:

ALEC, Heartlands, Cato Institute, George C Marshall Institute et al do not get funded for the sake of it.

http://www.climateinvestigations.org/exxon-did-cohen

From theWashington Post referenced above:

"No one would confuse the oil and gas giant with the Sierra Club. But if you visit Exxon’s website , you will find that the company believes climate change is real, that governments should take action to combat it and that the most sensible action would be a revenue-neutral tax on carbon — in other words, a tax on oil, gas and coal, with the proceeds returned to taxpayers for them to spend as they choose.

With no government action, Exxon experts told us during a visit to The Post last week, average temperatures are likely to rise by a catastrophic (my word, not theirs) 5 degrees Celsius, with rises of 6, 7 or even more quite possible."

The denier industry would hardly exist without funding from the fossil fuel industry.

Thanks Rod McGarvie for a much needed suggestion as to appropriate action on the climate fraud, which has been promoted without any science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate, and regular failure of the predictions of global warming which stopped over 18 years ago.
The Commission should also examine many more aspects such as:
1 By whom and by what means were reputable bodies such as the CSIRO and the Royal Society procured to make untrue statements about climate change, and human involvement in it. How are bodies like the BOM, and NOAA, procured to lie about the temperature record, to falsely present an upward trend.
2 By whom and by what means was harassment carried out on promoters of truthful science, like Bob Carter, whose University severed ties with him, and Murry Salby, who was subjected to breack of contract by Macquarie University.

The fraud supporters are out in force today with their baseless assertions of "deniers". They have no science to deny, which shows them to be ignorant as well as dishonest.
A Royal Commission is well overdue.

Peter Lang,

No problem. Re-reading it, my comment was a little convoluted. Still it gave me the chance to refresh my memory on some of these issues.

ant,

As expected. It's a core belief among the alarmists that all skeptics are only saying what they say so they can get the big bucks. And all deniers are then deceived by these funded skeptics. There's no evidence behind the belief but lack of evidence never bothered an alarmist before.

Its as though they think that if the funding wasn't there then the hiatus wouldn't have occurred. Or the Antarctic wouldn't be adding ice. Or the dams wouldn't have filled. Or the polar bears would still be dying out.

The actual facts don't change irrespective of what Exxon funds but the alarmist in the best traditions of double-think, believes otherwise.

What they really mean is that, if the funding wasn't there then the inconvenient data might be hidden from the people. Polar bear numbers increasing? So what, if its a secret. Temperatures unchanged for 18yrs? No problem if we can keep that from the people. That's the level of 'thinking' on this. Pretty sad really.

According to Greenpeace Exxon gave 23 million over a ten year period to skeptic groups. At the same time it gave many hundreds of millions to non-skeptic climate groups but that's another of those secrets the alarmists want to keep. $2.3 million per year across all skeptics groups. The Australian government alone spent more than that on the very alarmist Climate Institute.

Imagine what these evil deniers might have done if they got some real money. Now there's a scenario to keep your average alarmist awake at night.

mhaze, I think the majority of climate change deniers do not get any payment except for some high profile deniers and Heartlands et al.

The alleged activities of ExxonMobil in the 90s onward are more about commercial practice; misleading share holders, and the public generally, double dealing
Without science having been stymied through funding denier groups much more action could have been completed at far less cost ... a decade + lost.

The video clip provides a good over view.

http://climatecrocks.com

It is very apparent that those who deny climate science continually try to use sophistry, rather than, anything with a strong evidence base. Ocassionaly a reference here or there though; mostly, the source of the reference has been repudiated. The technique deniers use continually is to nay say or down play science.
Sure, there are a few skeptical scientists; though, the vast majority of scientist believe in anthropogenic climate change.

It is quite embarrassing how ExxonMobil have just lately endorsed the science of climate change.

Prince Charles is justified in linking climate change to the war in Syria but HRH may not have insight to the following links.

War in Syria is linked to shortage of affordable food linked to devastated seafood and shortfall in supply causing increased cost and inflation.
Consider food riots.

Shortfall in supply of seafood is linked to devastation of ocean food web seagrass nurseries linked to nutrient pollution-proliferated algae linked to warmth in oceans and change in climate.

Overfishing has impact but is not the fundamental problem, neither is farm nutrient runoff.
Fishermen do not fish for seagrass. Farm runoff occurs only in association with rain.
Un-managed sewage nutrient is dumped daily into ocean ecosystem currents.

Animals don't breed successfully when starved of food.
Small food web fish are seagrass dependent.

Long term interest of Prince Charles in environment issues is well justified.

Evidence of substance indicates the same cause of ocean fish devastation is the same cause of recent anthropogenic climate change, the cause is unprecedented sewage nutrient pollution and algae.

A Royal Commission could examine evidence. For example:

Some scientists claim carbonic acid destroys calcium based coral.
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-reef/threats-to-the-reef/climate-change/how-climate-change-can-affect-the-reef/ocean-acidification

and
http://ocean.nationalgeographic.com/ocean/explore/pristine-seas/critical-issues-ocean-acidification/

“Something strange is happening”, and so little is known about ocean ecosystems, yet CO2 is the cause?
http://www.scienceworldreport.com/articles/33767/20151128/rising-carbon-dioxide-causes-rapid-growth-coccolithophores-ocean.htm

How is it possible chunks of coral can be damaged by carbonic acid when microscopic particles of calcium within algae can remain intact and even thrive?

Reported danger of ocean acidification lacks scientific evidence.

Warmer conditions in north Atlantic waters of Greenland coincide with increase in cocco-algae in north Atlantic waters.

Increase in algae worldwide coincides with world ocean fish devastation and higher prices for seafood.

Increasing cost of fish was even linked to mad cow disease and CJD in humans following feed mills turning from fish-meal to lower cost abattoir offal for meat-meal protein supplement, cattle thus consuming brain protein from their own species.

Why has impact of ocean algae plant matter not been measured and assessed in AGW IPCC Kyoto associated science?

Was algae impact debated Paris COP 21?

An interesting article and film clip in relation to the measurement of temperature.

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/12/ted-cruz-climate-change-pause

This year promises to be the warmest year on record globally; ironically, should this be the case the long term trend line will fall short of the 2015 peak.

Retired Admiral Titley (qualified Meteorologist) explains how satellite data on temperature is not as accurate as that recorded at weather stations. In other words he has explained that temperature as displayed by deniers is distorted and can be seen as a myth.
Incidently, a much earlier clip shows Admiral Titley giving a dissertation, he indicated that he had started out being a climate change skeptic.

ExxonMobil has recently stated they fully endorse the scientific consensus view of climate change.

A Royal Commission would be very useful in relation to political entitlements; but, to create a Royal Commission in regard to climate change would cause much laughter around the world.

Yeah and I am sure gw has contributed to domestic violence (we need to drink more in hot weather) and throwing homosexuals off building. Having a goose like Prince Charles certainly would have one voting for a republic.

ant,

You still haven't explained how the allegations against Exxon, even if completely true "pull the rug out from under the deniers".

As a further example, take Heartland which you raised. Its annual budget for all projects is $6million. Exxon used to donate but never more than $120000 per year and often much less. Why would such minor funding alter what Heartland said about global warming? (as an aside Heartland doesn't deny - that word again! - that some of the warming is due to man, only that it isn't a problem now and won't be a problem in the future.)

mhaze, you minimise again, ExxonMobil funded a number of denier groups; I made it very clear that Heartlands and other denier groups were funded, hence Heartlands......et al.
The reference I provided featured a number of years beginning 2001 and a number of denier groups funded.

If you don't get my point about deniers being embarrassed, or having the carpet pulled from under them, so be it.
But, lately ExxonMobil has been saying that anthropogenic climate change is right; and despite having funded denier groups in the past, deniers of climate science are wrong

ant and other "CO2ist's",

If warming caused by CO2 is GLOBAL, why is there a greater and more consistent degree of warmth in the region of Greenland but not in Australia and New Zealand?

Well I give up ant. You clearly don't want to address the issue.

"If you don't get my point about deniers being embarrassed, or having the carpet pulled from under them, so be it."

You've asserted this but not made a point. You've said it so but not said how its so. You haven't explained why the people you call deniers would care what Exxon thinks now if they didn't care what Exxon thought back then.

But I get that you prefer to just make the claim and not have to support it, so I'll let it lie.

mhaze

I thought you wouldn't understand, whether by design or otherwise.

AF Aus

Read about polar amplification.

Google jet streams.

Google ProfessorJennifer Francis.

Get a PhD in science so you can develop your views on phytoplankton so they have some rigour, your views are interesting but nothing more.

ant,

How about you just answer the question I asked?
Better still, perhaps you could provide scientific evidence of the answer.

Think about the question and answer it. I reiterate.

If warming caused by CO2 is GLOBAL, why is there a greater and more consistent degree of warmth in the region of Greenland but not in Australia and New Zealand?

JK Aus

I've suggested you research the answer, and gave suggestions.

But, for decades scientists have stated that warming would be greatest at the Poles.

The question is; JK Aus, are you a denier in another guise, or do you really believe in the impact of algae on climate?

If it is the latter you would research the suggestions made.

WARMING GREATEST AT THE POLES?

Guess that explains expanding sea-ice in Antarctica - and why southern Australia (Adelaide, Canberra, Melbourne, Hobart) has had its chilliest July/winter in almost two decades – and first snow in Hobart since 1986.

"The June 2015 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was 14.93 million square km, 1.00 million square km (380,000 square miles), or 7.18 percent, above the 1981-2010 average. This was the third largest Antarctic sea ice extent on record, only smaller than the June sea ice extents of 2010 and 2014. There was slightly above-average sea ice in every region of the Antarctic, with much-above average ice in the eastern Waddell and Ross Seas. June 2015 is the fourth consecutive June with above-average sea ice extent in the Southern Hemisphere."

What we seem to have here, Watson, is an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Whether Antarctic sea-ice extent decreases or increases, both outcomes are interpreted as evidence of warming.

An ugly business. The more I see of it, the less I like it.

Alice

Prior to 1980 snow on the summit of Mount Wellington was a fairly frequent occurrence.
For a couple of ski seasons it was possible to ski in October prior to 1980 at Mt Mawson.
It is definitely very unusual for Hobart itself to have snow, right down to beach level.

Last year the Eastern States of the US were inundated by huge snowfalls; yet, the Western States received much less than usual in 2014. The global temperature still showed an increase. For an explanation on temperature view retired Admiral Titley's explanation above about how satellite reading of temperature is not as accurate as from land based weather stations..

The Arctic and Antarctica are quite different; comprising sea ice and land locked snow respectively. In relation to Antarctica it is not a simple linear point about ice is expanding therefore. Scientists are telling us about the grounding line at the end of glaciers being undermined by water underneath. Fresh water freezes at a higher temperature than denser salt water.
All interviews I have seen with glaciologists state that anthropogenic climate change is happening; please provide references to any glaciologist who have stated otherwise in 2015.

An interesting eventuality:

http://www.ecojustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015-12-03-Application-to-Commissioner-of-Competition-re-Climate-science-misrepresentations-updated.pdf

ExonMobil supports science:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/even-exxonmobil-says-climate-change-is-real-so-why-wont-the-gop/2015/12/06/913e4b12-9aa6-11e5-b499-76cbec161973_story.html

How temperature is processed:
https://theconversation.com/no-the-bureau-of-meteorology-is-not-fiddling-its-weather-data-31009

Why 1.5C became goal at Paris, involves Antarctica:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/10/the-troubling-science-thats-pushing-the-world-toward-a-1-5-degree-c-temperature-goal/?wpmm=1&wpisrc=nl_green

EVIDENCE

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/12/giant-blob-of-superheated-rock-under-west-antarctica/

"A new seismic survey shows there is a blob of superheated rock 60 miles below West Antarctica. To describe it, the researchers use the phrase “like a blow-torch”. Of course, just because the parts of Antarctica that are warming are near or over this hot blob does not mean it’s causing the melting. It could be a coincidence. ; -)

… this is the first detailed look at the Earth beneath this region.

Not surprisingly, the maps show a giant blob of superheated rock about 60 miles beneath Mount Sidley, the last of a chain of volcanic mountains in Marie Byrd Land at one end of the transect. More surprisingly, they reveal hot rock beneath the Bentley Subglacial Trench, a deep basin at the other end of the transect.

The Bentley Subglacial Trench is part of the West Antarctic Rift System and hot rock beneath the region indicates that this part of the rift system was active quite recently.

The study really highlights how little we know about heat flow in Antarctica:

While heat flow through the Earth’s crust has been measured at at least 34,000 different spots around the globe, in Antarctica it has been measured in less than a dozen places. In July 2015, scientists reported the heat flow at one of these spots was four times higher than the global average.

Ever since then, scientists have been wondering why the reading was so high. “Recent extension in the Bentley Subglacial Trench might explain these readings,” Wiens said.

REFERENCE

Lloyd et al (2015) A seismic transect across West Antarctica: Evidence for mantle thermal anomalies beneath the Bentley Subglacial Trench and the Marie Byrd Land Dome. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth, 2015; DOI: 10.1002/2015JB012455

That is the nature of climate change, worse storms more floods more droughts, hotter summers and colder winters maybe.
Any one that cannot see difference is happening, will never be any different no matter what.
Greenland is in freefall, the northern hemisphere is taking the brunt of change before the south at the moment, subject to change. Antarctic is melting, just not as severe as the Arctic.
IF Co2 was stopped now the lag time will put us in for decades of wild conditions to come.

Alice

Earlier in relation to Mount Wellington I did not mention that it has had snow quite often on the summit at Christmas time.

Sadly, your reference provides an abstract only.
I'd like to see comments from the author of the study rather than blog comments from a climate change denier.
The Pine Island glacier makes up 175,000 km2 almost twice the size of Tasmania.
Is there a hot spot near the Totem glacier of Eastern Antartica?
Are there hot spots in the Himalayas, Andes, and mountains of New Zealand?
What is happening in the Arctic?

Hot spots are not mutually exclusive to ground lines of ice sheets being undermined by water eating into them. There are hot spots elsewhere, I've yet to see them having a major impact on climate change.

A royal commission into climate science?

Whatever, bring it on.

My own preference is that no-one sitting in "judgement" has not Recently re-sat at absolute minimum, first-year thermodynamics or chemistry.

I can assure anybody that the comments of runner, Leo Lane, mhaze and others less offensively vocal have already demonstrated that they could not without considerable study.

Not one of these has mentioned the difference between "heat" and "temperature" in a chemical system. There are simple systems in which "heat" is absorbed without great temperature change. There are systems in which the addition of "heat" results in a cooler compartment within the system. Their arguments are all about what other people have said, and ignore what I would expect an inquisitive sub-adult to be capable of determining for themselves.

Bring it on, you losers.

Ant, I salute your determination in pointing out the severe deficiencies of these twits, but honestly, enough education to enable them to prove themselves wrong would cost them about $1000, non-refundable.

Rusty.catheter

Is there any particular reason to display your ignorance, Rusty, or you just cannot apply yourself to any useful activity?
You are obviously unaware that that the question of climate science is political, and has little to do with science. For instance, the means used to have Exxon Mobil defect from supporting the real science to supporting the climate fraud, has little to do with science, and everything to do with the dishonesty of the climate fraud supporters.
The question which you need to answer, is to what science do you refer us to show to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate?
If there is no such science, then your support of the climate fraud is dishonest.
By what means did you delude yourself into believing that any comment you offer has any validity, much less any value?

Leo,

Ant has already told you, and told you, and told you.

Extra Carbon dioxide traps long-wavelength radiation that would otherwise leave. That is "heat" that remains in the atmosphere. It is measurable. High-schoolers arrive having done so with a couple of carboys, some black paint and some beer gas.

Further, since the observations regarding conservation of energy have not been in any way nudged by anything that you have so far referred to, means that retained "heat" goes somewhere. Since *you* assert that there is no temperature change, where is that heat going? It doesn't just go away. Conductive heat loss requires a temperature change that *you* assert hasn't been measured (go read a text on heat transfer, a little harder than anything you've ever done I'd guess), radiative changes require a change in the black body temperature, which *you* assert doesn't exist. Therefore heat is accumulating in the system. Nothing political about it.

There are numerous ways "heat" can accumulate in a multiphase system with minimal temperature change. Go read up and come back with a couple. You've pretty much failed a major component of thermo if you cannot.

I am not interested in "debating" an idiot unless there is a qualified umpire.

If you want the benefit of my views, come to UQ next year, enrol in chemistry, pay your fees, and I'll help you learn, and I will do you the favour of marking you wrong when you are.

Further private tutoring will cost you $50/hr.

Cheers.

Rusty.

Leo

After what you have stated previously, this statement is astounding, you have undermined your own credibility:

"You are obviously unaware that that the question of climate science is political, and has little to do with science. For instance, the means used to have Exxon Mobil defect from supporting the real science to supporting the climate fraud, has little to do with science, and everything to do with the dishonesty of the climate fraud supporters."

Previously you have stated:

"After the rubbish that the flea has posted about Exxon Mobil, it is worth noting a few facts, particularly as there is no allegation of the breaking of any law, just investigation to try to find a breach."

All references to ExxonMobil state that their scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change confirmed by Ken Cowen a Vice President of the company. ExxonMobil scientists were involved with the IPCC, defection?
The Attorney General of New York has stated why they are investigating ExxonMobil, preliminary investigation happened prior to a subpoena being delivered according to ICN.

In a Court setting I suppose you would be seen to be an unreliable witness.

From:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17835&page=18

You say your a lawyer, not a scientist, your comments about what comprises science are sheer rubbish.
You have managed to undermine mhaze who stated that he had conferred with a person from Watts Up With That, about ExxonMobil.

In a reference provided previously, a statement Watts has made shows how he said that he is worried about government intervention...a political reason for trying to undermine science.
Projection doesn't work, Leo.

The underwater world on this planet is being ignored by CO2ist's.

It was known at least 30 years ago that using windmill apparatus to capture energy from wind blowing over ocean water would reduce wind energy that naturally drives surface water current/s.

Dissolved nutrient bonded to fresh water travels in ocean surface current so reduction of surface current flow would likely slow or prevent natural dispersal of nutrient loading in an area or region.

Nutrient overload can can amount to pollution causing damage and consequences, albeit that now require urgent study and critically urgent proper solutions.

Now even lake water is being ignored.
On SBS tv news today the CO2 alternative energy lobby are covering lake water with solar panels, and nothing is being said about impact of loss of sunlight on plant and animal life underwater.

@ ant, Friday, 11 December 2015 7:32:41 AM
If warming caused by CO2 is greatest at the poles (as you claim without providing any scientific evidence, ant), would the North Pole and South Pole would be melting first and faster than elsewhere? If not, why not according to what scientific evidence?

As @ Alice Thermopolis indicates, all possible sources of warming should be scientifically measured and assessed in order to find solutions to human influenced climate change.

JF Aus

In your last comment you indicate that you really are another denier under a different guise.

Oceanographers have been studying whats happening in Oceans for many years.
It is not only Oceanographers who are keeping tabs on what is happening.

On the news in the recent past was a concern expressed about a lake forming just above Mount Everest base camp; the question is did it develop through a hot spot or melting ice?
It is seen to be dangerous due to the lakes bottom wall comprising of ice.

Here is an interesting article JF Aus about the Gulf Stream possibly slowing down and floods in Cumbria.

http://robertscribbler.com/2015/12/11/more-signs-of-gulf-stream-slowdown-as-floods-devastate-cumbria-england/

Climate scientists have been saying for years that a warmer atmosphere carries more water vapour; nature is truly showing us that.

Interesting isn't it;JK Aus, that ExxonMobil have stated that Republican Presidential candidates are completely wrong in anthropogenic denying climate change.

I see, Rusty, you are a science teacher, but ignore science.
The human effect on climate is trivial, and not measurable. That is why you cannot refer us to any science which shows any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, but, like the flea, you still support the fraud.
The flea gave the melting of Antarctic ice as proof of global warming when global warming had stopped. Alice has mentioned some volcanic activity that might explain the ice melt. Better than being as ignorant as the flea, and asserting that it is caused by the halted global warming.
Why not look into why the laboratory science does not give valid results in the computer models. A Royal Commission might disclose that it is the garbage fed into the computers by fraud supporting scientists. Warming always precedes the increase in CO2 content in the atmosphere. It is not the increase in CO2 which causes the warming. The retaliation against Murry Salby when he showed that temperature governs the CO2 content was immediate. The fraud supporters made his life uncomfortable. A Royal Commission could disclose the actions and motivations of the participants.
The flea continues to use the term “denier”, while having no science to deny. Rusty has underlined the fact that there is no science in his ridiculous attempt to justify the failure of the flea.
We need a Royal Commission to expose the tactics of the fraud promoters

Whatever you reckon, Leo.

Like I said, lessons will cost you.

As I *also* said, I'm *fine* with a royal commission. I wonder though whether you or the article author have the integrity to abide by the findings.

I'd wish you luck, but frustration is the best you can hope for.

Cheers.

Rusty.

@ ant, Saturday, 12 December 2015 8:18:25 AM

Denial that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are warming the globe is a sensible view to have if you consider all possible causes of increase in storm intensity for example.

It was oceanographers that said windmills would slow water currents.
Oceanographers however tend to study the big ocean currents, not coastal estuary linked fresher water surface currents associated with biology.
For example ask an oceanographer what the biological value of seagrass is.

The link you provided makes not mention of algae.

From my point of view (since 1970), waters of the UK and areas of the north Atlantic Ocean are inundated with algae plant matter. I have seen and can describe the increase.

Drawing on evidence of substance I think it is the increase of micro and macro algae in north Atlantic/UK waters that is causing increase in weather severity in the UK and region.

As for warmer atmosphere carrying more water vapour as you say, ant, I have lived for 6 years in the Australian outback where the atmosphere is often 40c and dry as a bone.

I think ExonMobil would acknowledge anthropogenic climate change but not anthropogenic global warming.

As for warmth in ocean algae plant matter, recently it was put to me there is no chemical mechanism for warmth in algae to occur, but what about solar warmth taken up during photosynthesis and briefly retained?

A child can experiment.
Take 2 same size and brand cups, place two tablespoons of dried pea soup powder in ONE cup, place close to each other but not touching, and when the sun goes down fill both cups with boiling water, then measure temperature in each cup each hour for 5 hours.

The cup with the dead vegetable matter will retain warmth longer than the cup with water only.

Instead of trading emissions, think about trading plumbing contracts and employment worldwide to retrofit household waste and water treatment plant management, to reduce the nutrient loading dumped in ocean ecosystems, instead of denying algae is linked to precipitation.

I cannot decipher your ridiculous ramblings, flea, but am able to conclude from them that you have no idea of what you are talking about.
My comments on science make more sense than yours, flea, and have more validity. You describe mine as rubbish. How do we describe yours?
A typical sample of yours:” Hot spots are not mutually exclusive to ground lines of ice sheets being undermined by water eating into them. There are hot spots elsewhere, I've yet to see them having a major impact on climate change.” I can only guess at how it might read if translated into intelligible English, but at face value, it is clearly misleading, baseless dishonest sewage, which the flea is under the delusion sounds “scientific”.
Rusty has not made the admission that there is no science to support his position, but has gone as close to an admission as a fraud supporter can, and, at least, has gone away.

Rusty (the UQ tutor),

If I had a dollar for every time I see someone come on a forum like this claiming to have some sort of special education or expertise, I'd have more than enough to pay for UQ tuition. Of coarse these claims are entirely untestable which is why they are made. It dispenses with the need to actually show some logic and sense. Inevitably, these self-proclaimed experts make some kindergarten level error, and disappear from the forum as quickly as they came, unlamented and unremembered. I assume they reappear later with some other nickname, claiming as usual to have some special knowledge with absolves them from actually demonstrating any learning.

Anyway...
"My own preference is that no-one sitting in "judgement" has not Recently re-sat at absolute minimum, first-year thermodynamics or chemistry."

Why? The chemistry of climate change isn't the issue. No one, at least no one of any repute, disputes the basic chemistry of the greenhouse effect. No one, at least no one of any repute, disputes that, all else being equal, an increase in the various GHG will cause some warming. The issue is not whether there will be some warming but how much, how quickly and how dangerous it is.

Rusty, having an RC to look into the basic science would be like having a RC into whether we revolve on our axis.

Strange that someone so well versed in the topic would make such a rookie mistake </sarc>

I've said a RC would be useless but if it were held,better that it be run by, say, an economist since the whole issue of where we'll be in 2100 is predicated on economic scenarios that result in the various RCP. Or perhaps it could be run by an expert in modelling who could look into the efficacy of the various climate models which so wonderfully predicted the hiatus </sarc>. Or perhaps a statistician, or a solar astrophysicist since the big yellow thing might have a say in what happens in the next 100 years. Or perhaps....

I have been reading the comments and wish to make two points...to start with

First, it seems apparent that many discussants are unaware that many scientists disagree with the IPCC executive summary. There is quite a disconnect between the summary and the modelling and other data in the AR5 and previous reports. Many scientists hold different positions, but do not get a look-in because they are on the ‘wrong’ side. I am referring to e.g., Freeman Dyson, Mike Hulme, Judith Curry, Ross McKitrick, James Lovelock (originator of the Gaia hypothesis), Roy Spencer, Stephen McIntyre, Richard Lindzen (meteorologist, lead author IPCC AR3) and Ivar Giaever (Nobel laureate in Physics).

There are also many Australian scientists who hold similar sceptical views now out of favour. I list a few, who are qualified to be called ‘climate scientists’. Michael Asten, Professor of geophysics, Monash University; Robert M. Carter, former head of the school of earth sciences at James Cook University; Stewart Franks, Professor of Environmental Engineering, U Tasmania, current President of the International Commission on the Coupled Land Atmosphere System (ICCLAS); William Kininmonth, meteorologist, Head Australia’s National Climate Centre at the Bureau of Meteorology from 1986 to 1998, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology; Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University; Murry Salby, Former professor at Macquarie University, author of two textbooks on atmospheric science.

Second point. It is mean-spirited to libel the author of the article because he belongs to a minority party or because he is not a climate scientist. It is similarly mean-spirited to persist with the term denier because of its obvious allusion to those who dont believe in the holocaust. By analogy, not all believers in the holy trinity are high priests. Similarly one does not have to be a high priest to be sceptical about the concept of the holy trinity.

Here you all go again.
Pages and pages of argument all of it pointless.
It does not matter whether AGW is true or not.
It is the wrong argument.

We have to leave oil & coal before they leave us !
We have a limited time in which to use them to build the next energy regime.
Solar & wind cannot build our new energy systems and we need to use
the coal & oil for the reconstruction of our civilisation because if
we miss this opertunity we will go back to the 19th century IF we are lucky.

For God's sake WAKE UP !

@ megatherium, Monday, 14 December 2015 5:02:21 PM

Terms Of Reference of a Royal Commission would have to include thorough examination of how and why scientists with a different and/or conflicting point of view are gagged, shut out of climate change debate.

Is there any scientific evidence there is only one cause of anthropogenic climate change, being emissions of CO2?

Could there be more than one cause of increasingly severe weather conditions?

Can the United Nations justify failing to take due action to examine all possible causes of climate change?

New data. LOL.
Cattle in Australia emit 24% less methane than previously thought.

"Thought"?

Was this new data presented at the Paris climate summit during the past 2 weeks

Oop's, I forgot the link:
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2015/s4371857.htm

Cooling in the 70's? Again?
1. The majority of 1970’s peer-reviewed papers actually predicted warming, not cooling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XB3S0fnOr0M

2. Climate science had already leaked out into the mainstream culture, and the video above also contains classic sciences from the 1958 Bell Telephone company Science Hour which detailed rising sea levels and classic old animation of a glass bottom boat skimming over the drowned buildings of Miami. There’s even a scene from the 1970’s Sci-Fi thriller, Soylent Green, in which they bemoan global warming and the effects on the economy.

3. The same sheeple who just rattle off “They predicted an ice age!” don’t even know what *causes* an ice age. Do *you* know what causes an ice age? The scientists tell us that (apart from super-volcanoes or a nuclear winter) the main natural cause is ‘wobbles’ in the Earth’s orbit and tilt which changes the direction of incoming sunlight. According to these Milankovitch cycles, we’re not even due for an ice age for 50,000 years! “No declines in 65° N summer insolation, sufficient to cause a glacial period, are expected in the next 50,000 years.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Present_and_future_conditions

4. The majority of the hype was from the media, not the scientists.
"However, these are media articles, not scientific studies. A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). The large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than 1970s scientists predicting cooling, the opposite is the case."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s-
Those who predicted cooling overestimated global dimming, and underestimated global warming. They now admit they were wrong.

Max

So what?

Jardine

Here is something you don't need to worry about as well.
The article is about the anomalous floods in Cumbria in December 2015, they had already had a 1 in 100 year event in 2009.

Earlier in 2015, South Carolina had been hit by huge floods, said to be the sixth 1 in 1,000 year event by a meteorologist to happen in SE USA since 2010.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/december-2015-uk-floods.html

Max Green, about the Milankovitch cycles.
From memory is there not a number of smaller cold cycle every 6000 years,
between the really deep cold cycles at something like the 50,000 years you mentioned ?
Again from memory we are due to start entering the last minor cycle
before the next major 50k yr cycle ?
It was suggested that we burn as much fossil fuel as possible, hi!

ant

So what?

Jardine stated..."So what?"

Try working it out mathematically, Jardine.
Six, 1 in 1,000 year statistical events happening since 2010 is absolutely extraordinary.

Remember a warm atmosphere carrys more water vapour than a cool one.

Megatherium

Your list of scientists is incomplete. It should also include the Galileo Movement, Patrick Moore, Ian Plimer, Lord Monckton ..... They all deny that global warming is a problem. Some deny it exists. All deny the validity of science in the 1800s that firmed the central role of CO2 in managing earth's thermostat.

But, the amazing thing is, their individual views differ markedly from those of their brethren. There is no common view, no published / reviewed research. A couple in your list do have an atmospheric physics background, but neither has convinced any colleagues of the validity of their views. One is a specialist in under the surface geophysics, with little or no atmospheric science knowledge. One was selling shirts in London in the late 1990s.

Your list attempts to elevate Kininmonth to lofty heights however he was not involved in AGW research at all. But certainly involved with short term climate forecasts looking a year or so ahead for farmers, and others.

Your list is a bunch of misfits, some of whom may be funded to promulgate pro fossil fuel views by organizations like Heartland Institute.

See this site for reviews of many in your list:

http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database

Bazz,
Amazing how the same authors keep on writing guff.
According to our current Milanchovic cycle position, we are in the beginning of a cooling phase. But, but, greenhouse gas global warming is overriding Milancovich.
Dont buy skiis, but stock up on sun screen.

"All deny the validity of science in the 1800s that firmed the central role of CO2 in managing earth's thermostat."

If they deny the basic physics that is demonstrable in *any* decent physics lab, then they're on a par with people who deny gravity or photons or other demonstrable, repeatable physics experiments. Avoid at all costs.

ant,

I'd suggest you do some reading on what 1 in 1000 years means but we know from your refusal to read the actual Exxon papers that you won't be reading anything that might challenge your beliefs.

Are you aware that this same region had two 1 in 1000 events in the first decade of the last century and one of those was much greater than anything seen today?

Are you aware that individual events mean nought. Since you want others to do the maths, try working out the possibility that some region on the planet will have some unusual clusters of unusual events sometime and then you might see why this means nothing.

Are you aware that the IPCC has agreed that these weather events can't be linked to AGW?

Are you aware that even if these events can be linked to warming that doesn't in the slightest bit demonstrate that the warming was caused primarily by man?

Just to play this game the other way....are you aware that London has had more white Christmas this century than the whole of last century.

Oh wait, I just realised that in your religion cool events are caused by warming, warm events are caused by warming, more events are caused by warming, less events are caused by warming. Pretty convenient...saves all that need for pesky thinking. If today's weather is different to yesterday's its caused by AGW.

This is how puerile the whole saga has become

Hi mHaze,
the physics of polar V equatorial temperature differentials *decreasing* due to warming and weakening the jet streams are well understood by atmospheric physicists. So while you have a much warmer planet, as reported by satellites and temperature stations all over the globe, YES, sometimes because of a warmer planet there are colder spots when a weakened jet stream dumps cold weather over some of North America. YES, the physics of a warmer planet are sometimes counter intuitive.
http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/01/did-global-warming-get-arctic-drunk

Science has many surprises in it. The real world is complex. It sounds like *you're* the one who wants to deny the data and dum it down to some denialist dogma. But then, science and data never were the denialista's motivation for moaning. Science adapts to new data. Dogma doesn't.

"All deny the validity of science in the 1800s that firmed the central role of CO2 in managing earth's thermostat. "

CO2 has the central role in managing earth's thermostat. Really? So the Roman Warm Period was caused by CO2 changes? The LIA? The Minoan Warm Period? The Holocene? I think you might have over-egged the pudding there.

What I think you meant was that, in the 1800's, it was demonstrated the radiative forcing of CO2 is real ie that all else being equal an increase in CO2 will cause a rise in temperatures.

Unfortunately for your view, almost no one rejects that science and, I'd venture, none of the people you are talking about would do so.

The issue isn't whether a rise in CO2 will cause a rise in temperature, but instead what is the extent of that rise and whether feedback mechanism will enhance or offset that increase.

mhaze

Nobody has ever stated that extreme weather events have never happened before. Put another way in recorded history of weather events, how many other times have there been 6 x 1 in 1,000 year major flooding events in a 5 year period in SE USA...it was a Meteorologist who commented on the incredible statistics involved. There have been many instances of huge floods in the last decade around the globe where houses and cars have been washed away.

I have referenced previously where ExxonMobil have made donations to ALEC et al which are denier organisations from the paper work derived from ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil's scientists have also published science which fits into the consensus. ExxonMobil is being investigated allegedly for misleading stock holders. There is still much being written in relation to ExxonMobil; they have even been promoting a mining tax.

Since IPCC there are several papers that have associated anthropogenic climate change with weather events. In other words climate change can give particular weather events a fillip. We are told by scientists that a warmer atmosphere carries more water vapour.

Currently, there are unexpected high temperatures in a number of countries.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/weather/buffalo-gets-first-snow-smashes-record-longest-time-without-any-n483156

https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/32-7c-in-dunedin-record-temperatures-hit-scorching-south-island

https://twitter.com/GarySzatkowski

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/12/nature-state-confusion-europe-heat-continues-151222104608676.html

Cumbria was hit again by flooding though not as serious as earlier this year.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/12/24/east_coast_weather_is_freakishly_warm_this_christmas_eve.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-world-faces-food-shortages-and-mass-migration-caused-by-global-warming-a6784911.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/melting-arctic-ice-precipitation_56796ffde4b014efe0d6c7fa?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067&section=australia

Those are examples for December, there are examples for other months of 2015.

By the end of November the Sierra Nevada had only received 40% of its normal snowfall; very serious for California should that trend continue.

Max Green,

Yes I'm aware that the alarmists have a new theory to explain why their old theory was wrong. This week its the jet stream and that'll hold until proper research debunks it or the some other explanation becomes more useful.

Those of us who have followed this whole silly saga for more than 30seconds can remember back a decade ago to when the 'settled science' was telling us that snow was becoming a thing of the past and that children would grow up not knowing what snow looked like due to the effects of global warming. This was after a few years of reduced snow fall. Of coarse those who disputed this were declared to be deniers who rejected the clear science and were told that the GW models proved the reduction in snow was inevitable due to those nasty fossil fuel companies.

Now that we have MORE snow we are told that this is all due to GW. Of coarse those who dispute this are declared to be deniers who reject the clear science and are told that the GW models prove the INCREASE in snow is inevitable due to those nasty fossil fuel companies.

So no matter what the weather does it proves the theory which thereby becomes unfalsifiable - faith-based, not science at all.

Mhaze,
I have been cross country skiing in the Vic snow fields and the Snowy Mountains since the 1970s. Snow falls and length of the snow season in the 2000's has been sharply reduced compared with earlier decades.

Your comments about snow fall sounds too much like numerous other myths generated by those who are in the thrall of the fossil fuel industry. Unsubstantiated waffle worthy of a Monckton, a Carter, a Moore, - you might have noticed that the number of denialists is reducing, quickly.

ant,

1. It is claimed these are 1 in 1000 year events. But this is purely guess work since they have no way of knowing how often these things occur over that time scale. As with Carolina two of these 1 in 1000 year events occurred early last century when its impossible for even the most devoted member of the one-true-faith to blame it on CO2. Two such events might give those who were more interested in the facts than the fable to wonder if those who set these 1-in-1000 markers might have erred.

2. There are approximately 200,000 towns world-wide with some sort of weather station. Take 5 climate events (snow, flood, drought, fire, high-wind) which each of those towns might suffer, that means that there are 1million (200000x5) potential events each year. And that is at the low end of the calculation since some of these only need to occur on one day. So the potential number of DAILY events is in the region of 200million per year. To be conservative lets say there are 50million such DAILY potential events yearly world-wide.

Since we are talking about 1-in-1000 events, that means that, on average, there should be 50000 ( 5mill/1000) 1-in-1000year events per year world-wide or 130 or so each day.

Now we get into some sophisticated statistical probability analysis which can't be explained here, but using such analysis it is rather obvious that the likelihood that at least one place will experience more than 4 1-in-1000year events in 1 year is very high.

This works along the same lines as the birthday paradox whereby if you get 70 random people together its virtually certain two will have the same birthdate. Similarly, if you have 50000 events its virtually certain some will happen in the same place in the same year. And in your case we have these Carolina events happening over several years so the odds that this multiple 1-in-1000 event occurring somewhere are very high.

Still despite this, these events remain useful to the cause and therefore the near certainty of multiple events is ignored.

In another set of climate change posts, I suggested that each person standing for an elected government position should be required to prove he or she can think.

The article above by Senator McGarvie further supports that position.

To think that not one, of the thousands of scientists researching different aspects of AGW, has been prepared to spill the beans to a newspaper. In such a large and multi- faceted conspiracy, you would think at least one might chase media dollars for exposing the dastardly dead.

This conspiracy has lead to potentially billions of wasted dollars going to earth sensing satellites, just to add a level of authenticity to the myth of AGW. And then, scientists involved in this myth making come from the following branches: atmospheric, oceanic - surface and deep, glaciologists - ice caps and glaciers, biologists, ecologists, soils, forrestry, satellite, health care, and many more.

And, the bind that McGarvie is in with repect to the Bureau of Meterology: to strengthen the AGW myth, BOM has to use its collected data to predict the weather for a week or so ahead, while using that same data to depict the mythical multi decade warming trend.

To me, the available data says that McGarvie can't think.

There is no myth.

In my view, trying to delay urgent action on climate change is almost criminal.

Mhaze,
Vostok ice records go back 800,000 years. Ice core records provide CO2 data, proxy temp data, precipitation amount and more.

Other proxy records go back many millions of years.

I would suggest leaving statistics and risk to experts in CSIRO and elsewhere.

mhaze
I very specifically wrote that the 6 x1 in 1,000 year huge flooding events which happened in a Five (5) year period from 2010. Those events happened in the South East of the United States of America, you took off on a tangent completely unrelated to what I had previously written.

Something I've found constantly is that deniers either try to down play matters or say its wrong, very little in the way of evidence is ever provided. Another technique is to pretend particular details have not been provided.

Arnold Swartzenegger, an x Republican Governor of California poses some interesting questions:

http://www.knowable.com/a/arnold-schwarzenegger-just-blew-everyone-away-with-this-post-on-fb-wow

Governor Scott, Republican Governor of Florida is having some credibility problems at present, stating climate change is not happening. On a regular basis coastal areas of Florida are regularly flooded by the sea even when there have been no storms; just high tide events.

Tony153,

"I have been cross country skiing in the Vic snow fields and the Snowy Mountains since the 1970s. " etc etc

Personal recollection is a really really bad idea when making these types of evaluations. We all tend to remember things quite differently to the way the really were. This is the perfect example.

Here is a graph of snow depth based on data from Snowy Mountains Hydro-electric Authority.

http://users.tpg.com.au/mpaine/snow_aug_sep_54-12.jpg

"Your comments about snow fall sounds too much like numerous other myths..."

Which comments do you assert to be 'myth'. Let me know and I'll show you where you are wrong.

"you might have noticed that the number of denialists is reducing, quickly."

Well actually no. Indeed I've noticed the opposite and posted a link to a survey from the UN showing exactly that the other day. Although I guess it depends on what you mean by 'denialist'. Actually I don't deny anything other than that you know what you're talking about.

Tony153,

Thanks but I'm well aware of the Vostok ice data. What its got to do with snow fall in London isn't clear however.

I know that the Gore-icle relied heavily on the Vostok data which is, presumably, why you are anxious to mention it.

Are you aware that that data also shows that climate change precedes CO2 in the historical record ie climate change caused CO2 change rather than the other way around.

ant,

Sorry if I lost you there with the actual data. What I was trying to show you was that the 6 1-in-1000 year events over a 5 year period is actually not really unexpected even if you accept that they really are 1 in 1000 year events and not just things that have been labeled as such.

mhaze

If those 6 x 1 in 1,000 year flooding events happened around the globe it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that it is within reasonable bounds. When those events happen in a particular region it stretches credulity to the very limit to suggest it is not extremely unusual; the denier technique in action of down playing information.

A number of American ski fields have something in common presently...lack of snow.

Something else you would presumably believe not being unusual was a rainforest in Washington State that normally has over a metre of rainfall being hit by wildfire earlier in the year.

Mhaze
Thanks for perfect example of denialism.
The graph you posted above shows definite downwards trend in snow depth.
Yet you apparently cannot see it.

Tony 153

I had a look at the graph mhaze posted as well, it is quite clear there has been a decline in snowfall in the Snowy Mountains. The last 32 years show a definite decline.
mhaze, is also not showing an appreciation of probabilities; or, he knows, but was trying to down play the probability of 6 x1 in 1,000 year events happening in a defined area within a 5 year period..

Elsewhere, deniers jumped on an article in breitbart which discussed a paper that had just been published about isoprene; one of the authors commented on how the paper had been completely misrepresented by the breutbart et al commentary. Isoprene provides a negative feedback for climate change in a marine environment; deniers treated it as a new discovery that would mitigate against climate change.

ExxonMobil have been investigated by the Attorney General of New York State for alleged criminal behaviour by providing mixed messages in relation to impacts of fossil fuels. Scientists in the 70s and 80s were in the vanguard in relation to climate science; but, management of ExxonMobil began to fund denier groups.

Deniers at first were scathing towards the sources that had made public ExxonMobile's mixed messages. mhaze, stated a representative of WUWT suggested the paperwork of ExxonMobil cleared them of any wrong doing.
Not long afterwards apparently the wrong paperwork appeared showing that ExxonMobile had been funding a number of denier groups. It's another matter that WUWT has come unstuck on.

It was then suggested that ExxonMobil had been bullied by its critics in taking the view that anthropogenic climate change is happening. The science produced by ExxonMobile scientists in the 70s and 80s clearly showed man's foot print in climate change.

Somewhat of an irony is that ExxonMobil scientists were able to accurately project the current state of the Arctic in the early 1980s.

continued

Continued:

Anthony Watts from WUWT has stated that the rationale for him becoming involved in the denial
of climate science is through his worry about government taking away freedoms; ideology rather than science being a driving force, shown in:

http://climatecrocks.com/2012/09/21/dissecting-anthony-watts-pathetic-climate-disinformation-on-pbs/

From transcript:

SPENCER MICHELS: What’s the thing that bothers you the most about people who say there’s lots of global warming?

ANTHONY WATTS: They want to change policy. They want to apply taxes and these kinds of things may not be the actual solution for making a change to our society.

A political answer: rather than, a scientific one.

ExxonMobil have been saying that a carbon tax is appropriate.

Another interesting point is that climate science has an almost 2 century history; whereas, funded climate change denial has little more than 2 decades of history.

Watts sought to have video banned, it shows how his investigations into how temperature was managed was wrong, he came unstuck again:

http://climatecrocks.com/2009/08/19/youtube-reinstates-banned-climate-video/

The video displays a link with Heartlands a prime denier group.

The flea continues his nonsense despite having been shown to have no science to support his position. As a fraud supporter, he has a standard tactic. Accuse the realists of having no science.
I will again post the science which exposes the baseless climate lies promoted by the flea, and the dishonesty of is his use of the baseless term “denier”. Fraud promoters, like the flea, have no science to deny.
“Climate: The Counter Consensus is one of the very best expositions of both the science and the politics of climate change yet written. It can serve as an outstanding introduction to the issue of climate change, and as an accurate and up-to-date summary of the latest research. It includes a discussion of Climategate and the Copenhagen Conference. The range of scholarship that Professor Carter has mastered is astonishing. The language is clear and simple, but never over-simplified.
At the end of the book Carter asks the question ‘how did it come to this?' How did we get to the sort of the situation whereby in 2006 the former president of the Royal Society, Robert May told a meeting of BBC journalists and executives ‘that the science supporting global warming alarm was so certain that it was the BBC's public duty to cease providing airtime to alternative viewpoints.' How did we get to the position whereby policymakers around the world have been dictated to by a handful of scientists who have shown themselves willing to fabricate evidence, destroy original data, and defeat public scrutiny? How did we get to a situation whereby one of Australia's two major political parties is demanding a substantial reduction in the nation's standard-of-living which would make practically zero contribution to limiting the increase in global temperature?”
http://www.ipa.org.au/sectors/climate-change/publication/1838/turning-up-the-heat-on-climate-change-alarmists/pg/4.
What better basis for a Royal Commission?
Despite the expenditure of large amounts of time, money and research effort, no global human climate signal has ever been isolated or measured. Its magnitude is therefore small, and it must lie obscured within the noise and variation of natural climate change.

Wow. Get your tinfoil hat, it's all a conspiracy! There isn't a national academy of science on the entire *planet* that rejects modern physics-based climate science, but you'll quote a known contrarian's book (full of half-truths and lies) to justify your POLITICALLY BASED point of view. Here's the thing. EVEN IF climate change was a fraud (and I simply don't believe in conspiracies *that* big, which is about on a par with believing the moon is made of cheese and NASA covered it up with fake moon-rocks), the good news is we should wean off coal anyway because we have FAR CHEAPER power available!

Fact: Coal kills 3 million people a year worldwide, which is nearly 2 Chernobyl disasters a DAY!

Fact: Coal's health costs nearly double the cost of coal!
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/

Fact: when these 'externalised' costs of coal are accounted for, today's clean safe nukes like the AP1000 are far cheaper, and prepare us for the day coal runs out! Coal pollution in China is not only a health crisis, it is an international embarrassment. In short, coal is deadly, expensive, and finite.

Nuclear power, on the other hand, is SAFE, cheap, and could run the world for a billion years on uranium from seawater (which is constantly topped up by continental erosion).

Modern breeder reactors like the Integral Fast Reactor eat nuclear waste, and can convert America's waste into 1000 years of clean energy for America and the UK's waste into 500 years of clean energy for them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_fast_reactor
It also has passive-safety, which means a power failure will shut it down.
GE have an IFR ready to go. It can be mass produced on the assembly line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(reactor)
China are perfecting the LFTR, a reactor that includes all the advantages above but also cannot melt down as it is already a liquid.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change

Tony153,

"The graph you posted above shows definite downwards trend in snow depth. "

You chaps are hilarious. The graph shows a declining trend of less than 1cm per decade. That is less than 1mm per year. I know it won't mean much to you or ant but that yields a statistically insignificant trend which statistically means the trend is effectively zero. Whatismore, that trend includes the 50/60s when temperatures were falling globally and therefore snowfall was higher. If you take the trend from 1970 when you claimed to discern a "sharp" decline, the trend is indeed zero.

Yet here you are taking fright at this indicator that we're all gunna die. Its just too funny.

But it truly is serious. After all, at this rate the Australian Alps will be completely snow free by the year 4000 CE. Honestly!!

ant,
I'm sorry that you couldn't follow the logic or the maths that I showed. I dumbed it down as much as I could.

Try thinking of it like this. If you've got 1000 locations, on average one of them will get a 1-in-1000 year event every year. If you've got 6000 locations there'll be 6 1-in-1000 events each year. The more locations, the more likely events. The more years you count the more likely events. The more types of events, the more likely events.

When you tote it all up and do some probability calculations, its rather likely that one of the 10's of thousands of locations will get 6 1-in-1000 year events over a five year period.

Perhaps if you acquainted yourself with the Birthdate Paradox it'd make more sense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem

Mhaze
So you do agree snow depth is decreasing - big turnaround for a dogmatic denier.

But, with not accurate eyeballing, I see about 80cm decrease since 1960s, using line of sight averaging. Of course, most deniers are fruit pickers, particularly cherries. You probably chose two peaks that best fit your befuddled views.

No more comments from me though - some what's tiresome. I will remember you as a haze in which it is not possible to discern truth from myth but, on second thoughts, truths could not exist in that environment - all myth.

Tony153,

Check the graph.

See the line across it marked Linear. That's the linear trend line. It shows a slight decline across the entire period. No cherry picking - the entire period.

Everything else you said about 80cm etc indicates a complete misunderstand of what these graphs show which, I'd opine, might make it difficult to understand anything about the issue.

Still understanding isn't required when you just have to believe whatever the priesthood tell you.

Mhaze,
it's all a conspiracy! Of the guv-ern-ment. And the moon landing was faked... I learned this on that thar internet thang.
Regards,
Max

Mhaze
Always use latest data.
Last graph in
http://members.pcug.org.au/~terryg/Snowdepth.pdf

Leo

The IPA is an extreme ring wing political group, you provide a political reference basically.
Exactly why is there comment in relation to Senator Wong? Any article that mixes politics and science loses any credibility. Companies that are involved with mining are members of the IPA.

There are thousands of peer reviewed papers published every year; yet, we are to believe that one author knows better than pretty well every other practitioner. Books do not have the same status as papers published in Science Journals where peer review has taken place.

The Carter book was published in 2010; we did not know about just how savagely Greenland glaciers were falling apart at that stage. The pool of cold melt water in the Atlantic created from the thawing of Greenland glaciers was not an issue discussed at that time. It is having an impact on weather and ocean currents.

There have been a number of research papers written since Carter’s book in relation to the scientific consensus they all pretty well agree with each other.
To suggest that Carter has a better handle on climate science; than say NASA, stretches credulity to the limit. But, there are almost 200 major National Agencies that agree with man created climate change.
ExxonMobil scientists in the 1970s and 1980s also held a view that anthropogenic climate change is real.

We are to believe that Russian, British, Australian, Chinese, Danish, Dutch, Swedish et al climate scientists are all involved in a conspiracy...get real.

mhaze, since when does 6 (six) suddenly become 6,000 ( six thousand)?

Here is an interesting weather pattern developing:

http://robertscribbler.com/2015/12/27/warm-arctic-storm-to-hurl-hurricane-force-winds-at-uk-and-iceland-push-temps-to-72-degrees-f-above-normal-at-north-pole

Max Puce, we do not need babbling idiotic posts from you to confirm that you have no science or rational assertion to justify your untenable position.
You have already satisfied us that you are clueless.
The science, which I posted above, confirms that the human effect on climate is trivial, and not measurable. Like the flea, you have no science to support your baseless assertions.

The demonstrable, repeatable physics of CO2's Radiative Forcing Equation show the difference between the pre Industrial CO2 levels and today's CO2 levels to be an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs per second heat retained.

Trivial? I think not.

Scientific? Every National Academy of Science on the planet says so. Every decent physics lab as well.

Which leaves us with there simply not being enough tinfoil in the world big enough to build the tin-foil hat you need to protect you from a 200 year old super-conspiracy run by THEM!... whoever they are. After all, this conspiracy includes every National Academy of Science on the planet, and stretches from just after the Napoleonic Wars, through WW1 and WW2, the Cold War, pre-9/11 to post-9/11 and onwards. Now *that's* a conspiracy!

Max

Leo, uses fallacious arguments such as constant ad hominem attacks . They are used often instead of addressing content.

In relation to Professor Carter he uses the fallacious argument of appealing to authority.
Giving undue importance to one person’s opinion. against literally multitudes of other climate scientists.

He uses the fallacious technique of repeating constantly the same assertions which are patently untrue.

Science clearly does not get dented by these techniques Leo uses constantly.

A further sign of warm temperature.

http://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2015/dec/20/global-warming-weather-environment-el-nino?CMP=share_btn_fb

Three very recent weather anomalies:

1. Rain over sea ice in the Arctic; its meant to be winter. At buoy 300234062785480 within 4.55 degrees of the North Pole, had temperature rise by 25C in 9 hours on day 363. Rather than use dates, days are numbered so they can easily be compared to previous years. The temperature increased to 1 C above freezing.

2. The Mississippi River is displaying record flood waters; the issue is that it is happening out of the normal flooding season. Big floods happen due to snow melt in Spring or wetter summer months, it is too dry during winter for serious floods.

Quote:

"However, this week’s flooding isn’t truly put into perspective until you consider that nearly all of the historic crests along the Mississippi have occurred during the spring melting season or the summer rainy months. Wintertime flooding to this extent is typically not possible simply because there is usually not enough moisture in cold, winter air to support such incredible rainfall totals."

From:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/12/28/historic-and-unseasonable-river-flooding-overwhelms-central-u-s-mississippi-river/

3. There are ski fields in Europe which do not have snow.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/skiing-on-rocks-new-normal-as-climate-change-hits-europes-alpine-resorts-20151229-glwmvn.html

Britain appears as though it is going to be hit once more with huge floods.

In other words a Royal Commission is patently a silly idea; furthermore, ExxonMobil scientists were saying in the 1970s and 1980s that man created climate change is happening. Kenneth Cowan, an ExxonMobil executive when recently interviewed for an American television program stated that management support the view held by their scientists of anthropogenic climate change.

2015 was the hottest year by far, dwarfing the temperatures of our last big El Nino year of 1998.

Max

A very interesting film clip in relation to temperature increase and how it relates to the bell curve; not based on models but actual measured temperature:

http://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/presentations

The flea demonstrates his incredible ignorance, in labelling my post fallacious. Ad hominem is not fallacious if it goes to the credibility of the argument. I think I referred to Max’s post as “babbling nonsense”.Surely that is sufficient attack on his credibility.
Max is talking about 2015 being the hottest year. Remember when 2014 was the hottest year?

“The shameless activism shown by our federal scientists — particularly NASA GISS head Gavin Schmidt — may warrant further inspection by the new GOP Congress.”

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/18/update-feds-conning-the-public-scientists-accuse-nasa-of-misleading-lying-about-hottest-year-claim/#ixzz3w4zELclg
How long before the new "hottest year" is found to be another false claim. We certainly need a Royal Commission to expose the climate fraud promoters.
Max continues to babble nonsense about a conspiracy, whenever his attention is drawn to blatant misinformation by fraud promoters, because he has no science to justify his position.
The flea even refers us to the ratbag Naomi Klein, a non scientist, despite his baseless bleating about wanting advertence to science in this thread. He, and Max have no science to show any measurable effect on climate by human emissions. Global warming stopped almost 19 years ago, so extreme weather events since that cessation are irrelevant for that reason as well.

Leo, you have no credibility left. You accuse everything that doesn't fit your prejudice of being fraud, no matter how strong the evidence for it is. Conversely you assume any evidence that agrees with your prejudice to be true, no matter how flimsy it is. This was epitomised in your citing a blog post that claimed that humans were responsible for only 3% of atmospheric CO2. But the blog post's authors had withdrawn the claim after others had pointed out that 3% was the annual CO2 emissions, not the cumulative figure. Yet you could not bear to admit the truth even when I pointed that out.

The NASA figures did show 2014 to be the hottest year. Yes there's uncertainty, but it was shown to be more likely than any other year to be the hottest. Although 2015 is likely to be considerably hotter.

Nobody who understands statistics thinks that "global warming stopped almost 19 years ago".

BTW your juvenile insults (calling ant "the flea") don't affect his credibility, but would damage yours if you had any left.

Leo

A couple of short articles about the fallacy of ad hominem comments:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

In relation to infrared radiation forcing, scientists have been discussing the greenhouse effect for a considerable number of decades. The ARM study shows how extra W/m2 is created. It appears to be very little; however, when W/m2 is multiplied by multi millions of m2 that surround the planet; then, a huge amount of extra energy has been created above equilibrium.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

The clip referenced below shows in graphic form through the use of bell shaped graphs what has been happening in relation to temperature:

http://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/presentations

The graphs use only observed data.

Leo

Quote:
"... Max is talking about 2015 being the hottest year. ..."

At the beginning of this month it was pretty well a laid down mizaire that 2015 would be the warmest year ever recorded since preindustrial times. The information was available at the beginning of the month; now, there could even be a slight increase over what was expected.

It is winter in the Northern Hemisphere yet some record high temperatures are being recorded.
At Svalbard ..."Average temperature was -6.1 °C, 7.4 °C above the normal. Highest temperature was 8.7 °C (30 December), and the lowest was -19.0 °C (13 December). "
Quote from weather station.

Similarly, less than 5 degrees South of the North Pole a buoy measured temperature at a positive 1C, in a number of hours it had jumped 20C. Europe has had a lack of snow, temperatures in some Eastern US States also were unseasonal in December. Monthly temperature records haveI been on the news, so a record temperature for 2015 will happen as shown by the guest post at Skeptical Science below.

http://www.yr.no/place/Norway/Svalbard/Longyearbyen/statistics.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/2c-2015-11.html

The "pause" concept has been put to bed as an interesting notion, but wrong.

You will have to help us out here, Aiden, it is not clear whether you are a liar or an idiot. You say:” the blog post's authors had withdrawn the claim “Watts never withdrew his claim." What he said was:”this post has an error, see update below.”

The update:”A new post on The Hockey Schtick reviews a new paper “that finds only about 3.75% [15 ppm] of the CO2 in the lower atmosphere is man-made from the burning of fossil fuels, and thus, the vast remainder of the 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 is from land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean outgassing and plant respiration.”

“This new work supports an old table from the Energy Information Administration which shows the same thing: only about 3% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is attributable to human sources. The numbers are from IPCC data.
Look at the table and do the arithmetic: 23,100/793,100 = 0.029.”
URL for table: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf”
The new paper says 3.75%, Watts’ fresh calculation is 2.9%.
Would you care to explain yourself, Aiden?
If you have a better name than mine for the flea, please let us know.

Actually it is pretty easy to tell who is the idiot.

Is this the 'update' you are referring to Leo?

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/07/new-paper-finds-only-375-of-atmospheric.html

Leo, you have my word that I'm neither a liar nor an idiot. And of course you have no evidence for either, but you desperately want to believe I must be one or the other, as you're extremely reluctant to believe anything that doesn't conform to your prejudices, regardless of evidence.

Watts's exact words, when acknowledging the error, were:
"The chart refers to the annual increase in CO2, not the total amount. So it is misleading."

As for the table at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf it shows gross emissions rather than net emissions. If you look at the table objectively instead of just trying to support a predetermined conclusion, you'll notice that the CO2 from anthropogenic sources is nearly double the total atmospheric CO2 increase.

It is extremely misleading to use gross CO2 emissions figures in the way Watts has. When you consider net emissions, it's clear: the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere from human activity is much more than enough to account for the 30% increase in atmospheric CO2.

Gross CO2 emissions can be of great relevance when considering how to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, but using them in place of the net figures is fraudulent.

As for ant, I suggest you call him ant. It won't make any difference in anyone's perception of him, but at least it will no longer make you look like a particularly obnoxious kid.

It's hard to believe that supposedly educated people can rant on and on about CO2 while apparently totally ignoring presence and impact of algae plant matter and associated warmth throughout ocean ecosystems of this planet.

No wonder flat earth thinkers existed in the past.

Let's hope a Royal Commission will find why news media repeatedly reports CO2 emission views but reports nothing about photosynthesis-linked warmth in algae plant matter in oceans that produce over 50 percent of world oxygen.

El Nino phenomena is definitely linked to chlorophyll that is definitely linked to algae plant matter that is definitely linked to photosynthesis and ocean surface warmth.
It is increase in matter and particle to particle transfer of warmth that is involved.

I observe ocean algae is also linked to cooling when precipitation and cloud occurs causing shade.
Mid summer last week where I am in Solomon Islands near the Equator right now, it was just 27c degrees. I repeat, mid summer, just south of the equator.

International government dumped sewage nutrient overload amounting to pollution that is proliferating excessive ocean ecosystem algae does not make the news, yet solutions to reduce the nutrient loading could generate millions of jobs and stimulate economies worldwide.

http://www.biologyeducation.net/news-and-articles/el-nino-la-nina/

Surely there is need to think beyond CO2 and get a Royal Commission happening a.s.a.p.

The 11 year ARM study in situ, provides proof of infrared radiated long waves reacting with CO2.

The amount of energy created is very small per square meter; but, taken over billions of square meters around the planet it is a different story. Objective data; J F you have already identified yourself as a climate change denier elsewhere.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

ant, how can I be a climate change denier when I agree human activity is changing the weather and climate?
How?

JF,
The science, measurements and theory, explain why and how the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is directly related to the earths average temperaure. You deny the validity of this science. Therefore, in the general discussions on what is needed to preserve, if possible, a liveable world, your views have no role to play.

Similar discussions with you on other forum topics has found no change in your understanding.

In my view, you are a repetitive denier.

JF,
Oh, and by the way, you have a colleague in Leo Lane.

But, as is exemplified in numerous discussion streams and writings, no two deniers have the same story to tell.

Each has his or her own myth, each being a straw windmill in the winds caused by literally thousands of scientists who do understand, and who want urgent action to reduce FF CO2 to zero ASAP, plus many other ations as well.

They want our planet to remain livable.

Why not try to collect, say, 5 other deniers who believe as you do.

Or better still, join those wanting a sustainable Earth.

Cheers
Tony

JF,
One other matter to contemplate.

In building complex models of the Earth's carbon cycle, a large body of knowledge has been gained on the role of photosynthesis, and the important role it plays in turning CO2 into carbon sugars and oxygen. Ocean green stuff is key to maintsining our supply of oxygen. It has been thourally analysed.

Busy yourself in that research if you wish to understand algae's role in our environment. And then ponder the role of ocean acidification.

But, only if you want to be useful.

Which I doubt.

Tony

And finally,

Bring on the Royal Commission mentioned in the article.

Via questions searching for facts, the lack of knowledge behind the outpourings from snake oil spivs will identify deniers for what they are: supporters of fossil fuel, beholden to truths in the free market, believers in the aromatic values of profit before community wellbeing, believers in capitalism because of its value to the wealthy, and only the wealthy.

To the extent their actions have delayed meaningful action to mitigate / adapt to climate change they are, in my view, criminally negligent.

Tony 153:” they are, in my view, criminally negligent.”. That makes you a failed lawyer, as well as a failed fraud supporter. There is no need to talk baseless drivel to remind us.
We are well aware that you have no science to show any measurable effect by human emissions on climate.
This is the important fact to be brought out by a Royal Commission. The fraud supporters will soon paint themselves into a corner on the carbon dioxide science.
The fraud promoters will not debate, because they always lose, so it will be great to watch them subjected to the rules of evidence, and compelled to answer.They will be subject to penalties when shown to be lying.

Leo: "We are well aware that you have no science to show any measurable effect by human emissions on climate."

IPCC, much?

Dude, is it fun gathering around your favourite denialist virtual campfires with all your echo-chamber, telling each other scary ghost stories about a worldwide conspiracy of all those evil scientists? Or have you drunk the cool-aid and are actually a true believer, and are genuinely frightened every time the news reports another record temperature? Are the news readers in on the conspiracy as well? Do you wear a tinfoil hat, or just rub yourself in peanut butter every night to comfort yourself, that YOU are still in control and the world media conspiracy hasn't got to you yet? Is there a club with a secret handshake?

Dude, get a grip. You're losing it.

J S

When you supported Alice, it is tantamount to being a climate change denier.

Your comment:

"As @ Alice Thermopolis indicates, all possible sources of warming should be scientifically measured and assessed in order to find solutions to human influenced climate change."

That's what climate scientists are constantly doing.

The ARM study has measured temperature in a natural environment and explains warming.
They have found that CO2 and radiated infrared react and create warmth. It is measured in square meters and there must be billions of square meters around the planet.

Babbling Max Puce refers us to the IPCC. I asked for science, not ridiculous statements of human caused climate being “95% likely.”
The science as I have set out before, is that the human effect is trivial, and not measurable.
All that the IPCC have shown is that the CO2 science predicted global warming, because of the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere almost 19 years ago, when global warming stopped.

No use you getting a grip, Max, you have lost it, it is gone. only your nonsensical babble is left.You may think your nonsense deflects us from the fact that you have no science to justify your position, but it just underlines the fact that you are attempting to support a baseless fraud.

Leo

Previously you provided a reference which was retracted in relation to the proportion of man created CO2.
ExxonMobil scientists in the 1970s and 1980s were pushing the view man created climate change. Elsewhere you initially stated this was wrong; in the end your comment was that ExxonMobil management were bullied into making such statements.
You are not a scientist; but, claim to know what is science and what is not.
You very occasionally provide references which have been bypassed or written by non scientists.
Continually repeating comments that are wrong is a logically fallacious type argument.

It will not be long before 2015 is officially declared the warmest year since records began to be kept.

The quite short referenced clip shows what has been happening with temperature.

The short caption going with the clip states...

"- The first shows the climate moving into a non-linear mode somewhere between 2001-2011 according to numbers directly from a Jim Hansen paper:"
The film discusses observed data.

http://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/presentation

Please provide sound evidence that the bell curved graphs shown in the clip are wrong.
Being unable to so can be considered a datum point for any further discussion.
All graphs from reputable sources show increase in temperature since records began to be kept.

Leo

The last url address doesn't work, my apologies, try this one showing same set of bell shaped graphs:

https://vimeo.com/128141163

The premier of the film "Climate Hustle" did not go to plan. The question is why critics were stopped from watching. That suggests the deniers were not confident in their own film.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2015/12/30/fakery-paris-red-carpet-premiere-marc-morano-s-climate-hustle-documentary

But, please give a critique of the clip, using references from sound sources.

Yes, flea, with no science to support your position, all that you offer is a baseless criticism of a film telling the truth about the climate fraud.
You make the baseless assertion that the reference I gave was retracted. When Aiden made the same incorrect assertion, above, I replied( see above):” This new work supports an old table from the Energy Information Administration which shows the same thing: only about 3% of atmospheric carbon dioxide is attributable to human sources. The numbers are from IPCC data.
Look at the table and do the arithmetic: 23,100/793,100 = 0.029.”
URL for table: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf”
The new paper says 3.75%, Watts’ fresh calculation is 2.9%.”
Are you lying again, flea, or do you just not read the material, and make up your comments, fact-free.
There is no science which demonstrates any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. Your comments and references on warming are irrelevant. It is not human caused.

Hi Leo,
there's plenty of scientific evidence, enough to convince the world's entire scientific community, not just the IPCC.

There is not *one* national academy of science that thinks anthropogenic global warming is bunk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

So you'd better get that tinfoil hat ready, as "they" obviously have some sort of mind-control ray broadcasting 24/7 to constantly befuddle every scientist on the planet. Maybe your "freedom fighters" at What's Up With That can lend you a tinfoil hat, just in case the Enemy turn their mind-ray at you? Otherwise, even you might end up working for "them".

Leo, firstly I made no incorrect assertion.
Secondly you've got the URL wrong: it's http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/archive/gg04rpt/pdf/tbl3.pdf
Thirdly, nobody denies that nature absorbs and reemits a lot of CO2. But that doesn't absolve humans of the responsibility.
Look at the table and do the arithmetic: 23,100/11,700 = 1.974

No matter how much cherry picked data you post, it won't change the fact that humans are responsible for over 30% of atmospheric CO2.

Aidan,
exactly! If you run a bathtub with the plughole left empty, and have the taps on at exactly the same speed as the water going out, there's no problem. But turn the taps up by 6% and the bath *will* overflow. Our annual emissions are dwarfed by nature but that is entirely irrelevant. We're adding 6% more than nature can absorb each year.

Look out Leo, because it's going to get hot!

Leo,
I am trying to conduct an experiment, and you are the subject.
I will assume you know the difference between matter and anti-matter.

Well, you offer an interesting insight into anti-knowledge.
Are you able to answer the following, from your insights?

From Vostok ice-cores we understand that over the last few ice ages, CO2 atmospheric concentration has varied between approximately 180 ppm at their depths to a maximum of approximately 280ppm at the warmest times. During the holocene CO2 concentration varied little.

From your anti knowledge view, why is atmospheric CO2 concentration now at 400ppm?

Thanks, in anticipation
Tony

Leo

The exact answer I expected from you:

"Are you lying again, flea, or do you just not read the material, and make up your comments, fact-free.
There is no science which demonstrates any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. Your comments and references on warming are irrelevant. It is not human caused."

It really is difficult when you are not able to make any reasonable response in relation the bell shaped graphs as requested, and so make abusive comments.

How do you explain the 5 sigma increase of temperature in the bell shaped graph, Leo.
Observed data for the graph was used, all you can come up with is that it is not science; you provided a nonsense answer.
You keep saying temperature has not been increasing, the graph shows the complete opposite.

While not completely offical, the Japanese Meteorological Agency has pronounced 2015 as the the warmest year. 2014 wa seen as the second warmest year.

Babbling Max says:” there's plenty of scientific evidence, enough to convince the world's entire scientific community, not just the IPCC.”
His untruthful statementshould be disregarded, and note taken of this excellent summary of the situation as follows:

"there is no survey or study that supports the claim of a scientific consensus that global warming is both man-made and a problem, and ample evidence to the contrary. There is no scientific consensus on global warming."

http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/the-myth-of-a-global-warming-consensus.html
When do you leave school, Max? Your puerile school-yard output will not be missed if you acquire some maturity.

Leo

You call your reference evidence that pulls down climate science?
It proves the point made by Robyn Williams; science presenter on ABC, that deniers keep regurgitating the same old material.
When there are cartoons of Hitler or ISIS attached to material it a sure sign that the material is political in nature.

Your reference refers to attacks on Naomi Orestes.

A real credibility matter when the Attorney General of New York State is investigating ExxonMobil for the very matters Naomi Orestes writes about.

The signed petition described is an old and tired reference that has been debunked.

Your are not able to provide any valid references to debunk the bell graphs reference. Abuse doesn't cut it. Real observations provide evidence, semantics and sophistry provide nothing.

What comments do you have about the 300 year old bridge in Britian that has been damaged by the recent floods to the extent of not being repairable?

I have told you on more than one occasion,flea that I will not answer stupid questions, and I have not noticed any outside that category emanating from you. They are stupid because they are irrelevant. You have no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, so you proceed on a basis of assuming it, after which everything you raise is irrelevant, because you have no foundation.
Do not pretend that you are too stupid to understand this. You realize that it is only your dishonesty supporting your assertions, no science, and nothing rational

You say” When there are cartoons of Hitler or ISIS attached”. Are you lying again, or just delusional?The cartoons are of totalitarian fraud promoters
The article is factual. It is not news that Oreskes is a liar. She has demonstrated that from the day she published her first disingenuous survey.
The article, as I said, is an excellent summary of the situation, and involves repetition of the truth, referred to by fraud promoters like yourself and Robyn Williams as” regurgitating the same old material.”
As mentioned on numerous previous occasions, flea, you are not fit to partake in rational discussion.

Hi Leo,
peurile? Wow, sticks and stones, man, like ouch. ;-)

In the meantime, I'd stay away from the denialista sites that stoke your anti-science fanaticism. It's reached religious level zealotry with you, hasn't it? Let's here some data from the real world:

"No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points. The last national or international scientific body to drop dissent was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[13] which in 2007[14] updated its statement to its current non-committal position.[15] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Now now, before you cry into your beer for too long, I understand. It's a scary subject, and sometimes seems hopeless. I was an anti-nuclear activist about 6 years ago. I encountered the data, and changed my mind. I now agree with Dr James Hansen that we should be building 115 reactors a year to fix this. If I changed my mind, you can to. Come on back to the real world man.

We simply don't need fossil fuels. Once we build enough waste-eating IFR's, we'll be able to manufacture enough oil alternatives to really clean up our cities and save money on the health bill!

Forbes has concluded that according to public health data, coal adds 10% health costs to most first world nations health bills and that: “These additional health costs begin to rival the total energy costs on an annual basis for the U.S.” goo.gl/pVLQjO In other words, the retail price of coal-fired electricity is only half the cost. Coal barons outsource the other half to our health bill, and tip their hats to governments for picking up the tab. On this basis, nuclear power is already cheaper than the true cost of coal.

Leo

"...When there are cartoons of Hitler or ISIS attached”. Are you lying again, or just delusional?The cartoons are of totalitarian fraud promoters"....

Your cartoon has a go at scientists caught in ice in Antarctica and the figure on the right has a statement on their T shirt "Death to Infidels" a direct reference to ISIS. Your comment is bs. Anything that purports to present serious science would not present such a cartoon.

The source of your data is Heartlands which has no scientific credibility. If you believe Heartlands you would believe anything.
They were so confident in what they are spouting that they refused entry of perceived critics to the premier of their film Climate Hustle in Paris. Anything of a scientific nature should stand up to reasonable questioning.

You left out any comment about ExxonMobil who are being investigated. Their management has recently acknowledged that anthropogenic climate change is real, and their documentation shows they funded denier groups.
Your comment in relation to this elsewhere was that ExxonMobil had been bullied into it; a transparently thin comment.

Yes, flea, you were not lying, you were just displaying your incredible ignorance.
A cartoon which draws an analogy between the authoritarian actions of the fraud promoters, and Hitler, is not a cartoon of Hitler. This aspect of the fraud promoters is well known:
Vaclav Klaus, when President of the Czech Republic: “As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism.”
.
A Royal Commission would have some good witnesses:
Will Happer, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science.”
http://www.c3headlines.com/quotes-from-global-warming-critics-skeptics-sceptics.html
Ian Plimer has written a book, Heaven and Earth:
What Heaven And Earth sets out to do is restore a sense of scientific perspective to a debate which has been hijacked by ‘politicians, environmental activists and opportunists’. It points out, that the CO2 in the atmosphere — to which human activity contributes the tiniest fraction — is only 0.001 per cent of the total CO2 held in the oceans, surface rocks, air, soils and life; that CO2 is not a pollutant but a plant food; that the earth’s warmer periods — such as when the Romans grew grapes and citrus trees as far north as Hadrian’s Wall — were times of wealth and plenty.
Heartland cannot be criticised on the science it asserts. If you took notice of it flea you would learn some science, and cease to be a fraud supporter. You still use the scurrilous and baseless term “denier” when you have no science to deny.

" Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism.”"

Nah, you got that wrong. Communism was replaced by Corporatism, where corporations run the economy and pay denialist think tanks like the Heartland Institute to brainwash the gullible, like you. Denialism is your religion, communism your devil, and the free-market your almighty provider. Too bad coal kills 2.6 million people a year, actually *does* cause climate change, and will one day RUN OUT! What then, Einstein? Are you aware of the peaking in resources, and that a real economic crisis can start half way through the resource as the cheap half peaks? Ha? Anyone home? Or has the denialist faith got you wearing your tinfoil hat again?

Leo

Your appeal to authority is but a fallacious argument.

Heartlands doesn't have any credibility being funded by fossil fuel companies to create doubt.

There is a film clip where Monbiot has a debate with Plimer; Plimer did not come out looking good. Plimer came out appearing quite arrogant, Monbiot was quite rude, but Monbiot provided better views on science.
Books provide interesting ideas, but do not have the same status as peer reviewed Journal papers.

When communist type comments are made, it suggests a political motive for being against the science of climate change. Politics has no veracity in relation to science.
You misrepresented me in relation to the cartoon; there was a comment about "death to infidels" a clear ISIS association.

The association between CO2 and radiated infrared long waves is known.
What we have is W/m2; where W equals watts, and m2 equates to meters squared.
How many billions of square meters is your figure for the planet, Leo?

At present the sun is in a dimming phase, why is temperature not going down?
You keep suggesting that silly questions are being asked, and so won't answer them.
Science is about continually asking questions; but, you are unable to and are quite abusive in your comments.

Stay in the schoolyard until you pass your exams, Max, do your puerile babbling there. The assertion is by Vaclav Klaus, a qualified economist, who was President of the Czech Republic, and observation of calls from fraud promoters to stiflethe truth to prove him right(see below). There is nothing to back your assertion. Klaus has written a book, “Blue Planet in Green Shackles, in which he details his observations
There are honest assessments of Plimer’s contribution which are different to yours, flea:” George Monbiot is doubling down on the lies he and Tony Jones made in the debate they had with Ian Plimer. Monbiot has a new article out reinforcing these lies indirectly. The article has the heading:
“Should climate deniers be allowed to speak on the Today programme?
Had the BBC done its research, Ian Plimer’s falsehoods would not been allowed to pass unchallenged”
WHAT FALSEHOODS WOULD THAT BE GEORGE YOU LIAR? George Monbiot isn’t about to answer that question. The falsehoods came from Monbiot and Jones.
Monbiot made an idiot of himself in that debate. It was Monbiot who refused to answer any questions on climate science. Plimer wrote a book and answered the questions. He also answered the questions during the debate when he could get a word in ”
You say, flea:“Science is about continually asking questions”
The questions need to be pertinent, flea, like mine to you, which you never answer. I have explained to you in detail why your questions have been irrelevant.
Another good witness for the Royal Commission, the climate scientist Nils Axel Morner, who has just published a paper.
An extract:” The anthropogenic, CO2-driven, Global Warming (AGW) has taken the world by storm, and grown into a new `religion´. It is built on false premises, however. It violates the physical law of a logarithmic relation between atmospheric CO2 content and temperature, and it ignores actual temperature measurement and related observational facts. The calculated temperature changes from 102 AGW-models lie above measured values by a factor of three. It leaves us with the conclusion that the AGW- idea is a heresy.”
http://crescopublications.org/journals/jbl/JBL-1-001.pd

Leo

You suggest questions need to be pertinent; you are not able to answer them when they are about science. Science is about continually asking questions.

Continually suggesting something is wrong without responding to why, is meaningless. It is a logical fallacy; along with logical fallacies your comments mostly contain abuse. Needing to be abusive to try and make a point is the hallmark of a flimsy argument.

Quotes from books making statements of opinion make not an iota of difference to science.

When deniers can break done the fundamental touch stone of climate science; then, they have a basis to argue from.

Leo, some questions about science:

Can the origin of CO2 be identified through its isotopes?

What evidence is there to show that W/m2 multiplied by billions of square meters is wrong?

If CO2 has little impact on climate; what natural phenomena is causing the climate to change?

Deforestation also has an impact on climate, as do water vapour and methane gas.
At present, Los Angeles in California has major problems with methane being voided. Thousands of people have had to leave their homes for an indeterminate period.

The obvious response is the sun; however, the sun is in a slight dimming phase at present and temperature should be cooling, it is going up.

Volcanic action has been an issue in the distant past, creating huge quantities of CO2; but, volcanic action is having virtually no impact at present.

What is your explanation for "atmospheric rivers"?

What caused the pingo explosions on the Yamal Peninsula of Siberia?

What is causing glaciers in the Andes and New Zealand to be regressing?

An abusive comment back, and saying they are silly questions would highlight you have nothing valid to present. Just responding to one of the questions is no answer, as you make blanket statements about climate science being wrong.

Leo asserts that today's climate science ignores the...

"logarithmic relation between atmospheric CO2 content and temperature"

Rubbish. Climate scientists know ALL about this, and it is perfectly accounted for. How much do climate scientists say the first chunk of pre-industrial C02 warmed the planet?

Then how much do they say a doubling of this will warm the planet?

Why are these 2 numbers different?

Go ahead Leo, I'd love to see you explain this!

Tinfoil hat much?
Defying the world scientific community much?
Conspiracy theory much?
Moon made of cheese much?
Embarrassing yourself much?
Need to grow up much?

All that Max has to explain is why the laboratory science of carbon dioxide does not work in the real world. If it did, then global warming would not have stopped almost 19 years ago, at a time when the “science” predicted that it would continue and increase. Max’s brilliant comment, rubbish” describes the form and content of his “science”. Even as an ignoramus from the school-yard he should be able to do better.

There is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, is there, Max? You have shown us that you are ignorant of science, but at least you know that. Try to build on that starting point, instead of drivelling on about tin hats.

Leo

You have set yourself up as a scientist and say experiments in the laboritory do not support climate science. Where is your evidence?

The ARM study was conducted over 11 years in the natural environment at 2 locations.
It showed the relationship between CO2 and radiated infrared long waves and warming.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132103.htm

Leo,
you changed the topic. We're not talking models at the moment, right? You raised the "logarithmic relation between atmospheric CO2 content and temperature", right? So for once in your tinfoil hat little life do you want to stay on the subject, and answer the questions put to you?

What does the first half of CO2 do?

What warming do the climatologists say the second half will do?

Why are these numbers so VASTLY different?

If you're not up to answering this question, then just buzz off back to your denialist echo-chamber and have a rant there. You'll hear what you want: your own delusions broadcast back at you. You'll feel much better, and maybe give us a break from these tinfoil hat delusions.

You changed the topic, Max, not me. Your “science does not work, so you have no answers.
What else can a fraud supporter with no science to justify his position do. Your ignorance has caught up with you, Max, and I am sure that it is not the first time.
This is what you have to explain, Max:” The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so has shown how exaggerated NASA’s and most other computer predictions of human-caused warming have been—and how little correlation warming has with concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. As many scientists have pointed out, variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and with complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere. There isn’t the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather,” Happer and Schmidt wrote.
Princeton’s Dr. Happer, who has authored 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, explained in Senate testimony in 2009 that the Earth is currently in a ‘CO2 ‘famine.’ Happer explained to Congress: ”Warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind…’CO2 is not a pollutant and it is not a poison and we should not corrupt the English language by depriving ‘pollutant’ and ‘poison’ of their original meaning,” Happer added.
“Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has CO2 levels been as low as it has been in the Holocene (geologic epoch) – 280 (parts per million – ppm) – that’s unheard of. Most of the time [CO2 levels] have been at least 1000 (ppm) and it’s been quite higher than that,” Happer told the Senate Committee. “Earth was just fine in those times,” Happer added. “The oceans were fine, plants grew, animals grew fine. So it’s baffling to me that we’re so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started,” Happer explained.

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/14/co2-nears-400-ppm-relax-its-not-global-warming-end-times-but-only-a-big-yawn-climate-depot-special-report/#ixzz3xB315SQm
That is what competent scientists say, which is aligned with what happens in the real world. You support the baseless alternate reality, so have to go off topic, and talk childish drivel about tin hats.

Leo

You say: "...The cessation of observed global warming for the past decade or so...."

How do you explain how in winter 2016 there is a Sub Tropical Storm in the North Atlantic, and the Pacific is catching some action as well?

Quote:
"As we ring in the New Year with record to near-record warm temperatures over much of Earth’s oceans, we are confronted with something that would have been unimaginable a few decades ago: simultaneous January named storms in both the Atlantic and Central Pacific. The earliest named storm on record in the Central Pacific, Hurricane Pali, formed on January 7, and now the Atlantic has joined the early-season hurricane party, with Subtropical Storm Alex spinning up into history with 50 mph winds in the waters about 785 miles south-southwest of the Azores Islands. The average date of the first named storm in the Atlantic is July 9; the Central Pacific also typically sees its first named storm in July...."

From:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=3222#commenttop

An update on Sub Tropical storm Alex:

http://robertscribbler.com/2016/01/14/alex-now-a-completely-unprecedented-atlantic-hurricane-in-january/

The Japanese Meteorological Agency has provisionally declared 2015 the warmest year ever recorded and 2014 the second warmest year. Nature is poking fun at your comments, Leo.

Leo,
dodging *again*?

Logarithmic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=we8VXwa83FQ

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=82&p=5

Do make sure you take your meds every day, not just when the moon is singing to you.

I do not have to dodge your puerile rubbish, Max, it never touches me. It just keeps me aware of your failure in science which you are attempting to hide. It is obvious that you are nailed on the failure of the CO2 science, and make the ridiculous assertion that I am “dodging”. Without science to show a measurable human effect on climate, the answer to your off topic question is completely irrelevant.
You are unable to refer us to science to show any measurable human effect on climate, so persist in supporting the climate fraud on the sole basis of your dishonesty.
Your familiarity with "meds" has lost me. I have never had occasion to use them, or to perceive the "singing of the moon" with which your mental aberrations make you so familiar.

Leo,
yeah, I guess you got me. Global Warming science is so unfounded, so lacking in evidence that every National Academy of science on the entire planet accepts the 'lacking' evidence! As the wiki says:

"Academies of science (general science)[edit]
Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_scientific_organizations_of_national_or_international_standing

34 national science acemies, but only YOU *really* understand the science.
Tinfoil hat much? Back to your meds mate.
(Or am I just feeding the troll? As psychologists tell us about children, negative attention is better than no attention. Is the negative attention you get here better than just being ignored the way you are in the rest of your life? Is that why you're a troll?)

The flea is well aware that there is no proven connection between global warming and extreme weather, but because he has no science to support his position, he dishonestly asserts the unsustainable, emphasising his lack of any scientific credibility. In any event he has no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, so his assertions are baseless:
“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” — Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Read more: http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/05/14/co2-nears-400-ppm-relax-its-not-global-warming-end-times-but-only-a-big-yawn-climate-depot-special-report/#ixzz3xIGg65GI

Even the deceptively named fraud supporters, Skeptical Science say:
” the reason more hurricanes are being observed may be due to an improved ability to observe them, thanks to aircraft, radar and satellites.”

Yes, Max, that is as close as you will go to an admission of your unsupportable, fraudulent, position:” yeah, I guess you got me. Global Warming science is so unfounded, so lacking in evidence that every National Academy of science on the entire planet accepts the 'lacking' evidence!”
That is certainly a strong argument for a Royal Commission into this travesty. The scientific bodies who supported it were pulled into line by their memberships. The Royal Society and others were forced to retract their dishonest support for “human caused” warming, but the Academies need a Royal Commission.
As for “feeding the troll”, Max, you are the troll.

Max

Leo has tied himself up in knots in responding to you

Funny how Leo hasn't answered any of the science questions I have asked.

I made this comment, after asking Leo science questions on 11th January :

"An abusive comment back, and saying they are silly questions would highlight you have nothing valid to present. Just responding to one of the questions is no answer, as you make blanket statements about climate science being wrong."

An addition, saying they have nothing to do with science is another fail.

He has not responded.

Leo

There are any amount of sites which say that extreme weather is associated with climate change. You don't get proper information from non scientist blog sites such as climate deport.

Leo, here is a quote from your reference:

"Climate Myth: Hurricanes aren't linked to global warming"

Debunk the scientist explaining hurricanes in film clip, Leo. He talks about the relationship between hurricanes and warm Oceans. He gives a more contemporary view on hurricanes, than some of the references provided in the article. The quote you gave from Skeptical Science represents pure cherry picking, the reference below contains your quote:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=64

The current Sub Tropical Storm Alex should not be happening in Winter in the Atlantic; quite extraordinary.

Hi Ant,
climate deniers are a dime a dozen: all insane attention seeking time-wasting fools on a quest to save the free market from... some conspiracy in their imaginations? What do they fear? France went nuclear decades ago, and have some of the cheapest most reliable electricity in the world, and export more than any other country. Then with abundant reliable electricity, we can charge all the electric cars we want overnight and during the day, or even recycle burned boron pellets. Shutting down fossil fuels will also prepare us for their inevitable peak and decline, save 2.6 million lives a year, and clean up Asia's polluted cities. What on EARTH is Leo so frightened of? Nothing sane. It's all in his head, and probably a dysfunctional personality. I don't like the way I've let him under my skin, so I'll leave this conversation up to you. If you can be bothered! I'll understand if you tire of this predictable little troll as well.

Hi Max

I think Leo sets himself up as a straw man, he has not offered anything in the way of science. He supports the IPA and Heartlands from what I can gather.
I keep responding as the number who read various articles and posts exceeds the number who actually post.

The two science deficient dunces team up to talk nonsense The flea complains again that I do not answer his stupid questions, and Max, his co-fraud supporter uses the scurrilous and baseless term “denier”.
What science are they supposed to be denying, Max?
The flea thinks his stupid questions should be answered.
How about answering a sensible question, flea?
To what science are you able to refer us to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate?
If there were any such science, you and Max would not be the dishonest fraud supporters you are.
Good to see the back of you, Max. One less troll.

Leo

Questions such as why, where, and how are obviously not in what you purport science to be.
Science is about continually asking questions.

Russian scientists are studying the pingo explosions on the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia; yet, you say it is not science.
You say the 11 year ARM study is not science; it has provided answers you don't like.
You will not acknowledge that the isotopes of CO2 can be measured.
You will not broach the area of atmospheric rivers.
The cause of glaciers in New Zealand and the Andes relates to climate change; yet, you are saying those issues are not matters of science.

You are not able to answer the science related questions asked; yet, you set yourself up as an expert in the area by suggesting climate change is fraud.
The irony is that ExxonMobil are being investigated for criminal action through funding denier groups, and at the same time supporting their scientists of the 1970s and 1980s who supported the consensus view of climate change. The criminal aspect is the alleged misleading of shareholders. A number of coal mining companies are going bankrupt in the US at present.

Leo, you are not a scientist; nor are you an arbiter of what constitutes science and what does not.

Incidentally, the Japanese Meteorological Agency has just declared that December 2015 has had a global temperature increase for December of 1.4C since they began measuring in 1890.

The technique of lying by implying the untruth in a question is one of your techniques, flea.
You know that there is no scientific basis for asserting that extreme weather events are caused to global warming, you imply it in a question. The hound uses the same technique.
The questions are stupid, but their purpose is to imply an untruth.
I am not dealing with science, in any response to you, I am dealing with your dishonesty.
You are asked to give a scientific basis for your baseless assertion of human caused climate change.
You have ignored this, but continually refer to "science" which baselessly assumes human causation. Your position is based on your own denial of science.

The flea ignores the immense harm to the community and the human death toll arising from policies formulated on the basis of the climate fraud which he supports: “climate policy is already doing harm. Building wind turbines, growing biofuels and substituting wood for coal in power stations — all policies designed explicitly to fight climate change — have had negligible effects on carbon dioxide emissions. But they have driven people into fuel poverty, made industries uncompetitive, driven up food prices, accelerated the destruction of forests, killed rare birds of prey, and divided communities. To name just some of the effects. Mr Goklany estimates that globally nearly 200,000 people are dying every year, because we are turning 5 per cent of the world’s grain crop into motor fuel instead of food: that pushes people into malnutrition and death. In this country, 65 people a day are dying because they cannot afford to heat their homes properly, according to Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster, yet the government is planning to double the cost of electricity to consumers by 2030.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-net-benefits-of-climate-change-till-2080/

Leo

You can't answer the questions and so put out a smoke screen.

Arnold Schwarzenegger; former Republican Governor of California makes an interesting observation about the impact of coal emissions on death rates, asserting that 19,000 people die per day. There is a hyper link to his Facebook page in reference below.

http://fortune.com/2015/12/08/arnold-schwarzenegger-climate-change/

Your science is quite peculiar; Leo, quite idiosyncratic, the how, why and where type questions are eliminated. Regardless of what is put to you use abuse and semantics.

Yes, flea, you have demonstrated your mentality, or , rather, the deep flaws in it.
You showed your support of the assertion of human caused climate change, and were asked to reference the science which shows any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
A reasonable request, to which any reasonable person in your position would give a proper response.
But not you; your response was to avoid answering and to ask stupid questions, when there was nothing about my question which required clarification.
Your questions amounted to assertion of lies about climate, in the form of questions.
You refuse to conduct yourself in a proper manner, by way of response to my legitimate question, then have the addled-brained temerity to request that I answer the baseless nonsense which you put to me in pseudo-question form.
You have made the assertion and the onus is on you to answer the question about your assertion. What science shows any measurable effect of human emissions on climate? If there is no such science, and according to science, posted by me on a number of previous occasions, there is not, you should say so, and end your boorish, ignorant and disgraceful conduct, which makes you unfit for participation on this Forum.

Leo

The hows, whys and whats do not appear in your answer.

You are very creative Leo with your answer; except, it doesn't relate to science.

Research has no part in what you believe science should be involved in... the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory apparently doesn't involve itself in science according to you, Leo. I have provided the reference to the Laboratory a number of times

In a 2007 paper by Robert Carter, climate scientist, there is an excellent summary in his conclusions, on the fatally flawed assertion of human caused climate change. It also demolishes the IPCC greenhouse hypothesis.CO2 is a benign gas essential to all life on earth.
“The absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test

The IPCC advances three main categories of argument for a dangerous human influence on climate. The first is that over the last 100 years global average temperature increased by about 0.74°C, which indeed it did if you accept (against the odds) that the surface thermometer record used by the IPCC is accurate (cf Figure 6). More reliably, historical records and many geological data sets show that warming has indeed occurred since the intense cold periods of the Little Ice Age in the 14th, 17th and 19th centuries (eg Lamb, 1977). The part of this temperature recovery which occurred in the 20th century is the much famed ‘global warming’, alleged to have been caused by the accumulation of human-sourced carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, the high quality MSU satellite data discussed earlier signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006 (Figure 9), but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public – a test that the hypothesis fails.”
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/Carter2007.pdf
The flea continually asserts that I do not refer to science, but I have given science links on numerous previous occasions, showing assertions of human caused climate change to be baseless. The flea has posted no science to show otherwise. He has never shown science produced by Lavoisier to be other than sound, but posts scurrilous and ineffective ad hominem, directed at them, which is all that an unprincipled fraud supporter can do, when he has no valid answer for his position.

Leo

Watts is not a scientist; so does not provide a science site.

There are skeptical scientists, and Carter is one.

But, Leo you have not produced any evidence that man created climate is not happening.

In the last week there was reference to a study suggesting that man has set back an ice age by several thousand years. Also, just lately there was a paper indicating that the sun has been in a dimming phase over the last five years and so temperature should have been cooling.

The view that temperature has not been increasing since 1998 is absurd. View temperature in a decadal mode as shown in film clip and it highlights just how puerile the comment is that temperature has not been increasing.

2015 has been recorded as the warmest year ever recorded, with 2014 the second highest by the Japanese Meteorological Agency. December 2015 recorded an average global temperature of 1.4C over prior December measures since 1890, recorded by JMA. The December measure is a concern on the basis that at the Paris deliberations the goal set was to try and stop the average global temperature exceeding 1.5C.
The December 1.4C temperature increase admittedly is for only one month but it does display an uncomfortable trend should 2016 temperatures set a record.

Where are these graphs wrong; Leo? They come from a science source.
They display recorded data:

https://vimeo.com/128141163

Leo

This reference speaks for itself:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/opinion/sunday/cancer-and-climate-change.html?ref=topics&_r=1

@ ant, Monday, 18 January 2016 5:59:30 AM

The graphs are wrong because they do not include impact of photosynthesis-linked warmth in increased algae plant matter in oceans that produce well over 50 percent of world oxygen.

How can such plant matter be excluded from climate science?

Who is behind the exclusion?

Bring on a Royal Commission.

J S Aus

Wow

The graphs showed actual measured temperatures.

But, a very recent paper suggests that the breakdown of huge ice bergs in Antarctica slows down climate change due to nutrients being spread. Phytoplanton are thriving as a result.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/01/11/the-surprising-way-that-huge-icebergs-slow-down-climate-change-a-little/

Rumin ant,

Why do you now so often type the wrong initials for my login name?
Which brings to mind fact that plant matter eaten by ruminant animals has been measured and assessed but there has been no measurement and assessment of solar warmth in unprecedented sewage-linked plant matter in oceans and lakes and waterways of the world.

You are wasting time with CO2 non-sense, ant.

I makes me laugh to see science trying to say CO2 is melting ice causing release of nutrient proliferating algae.

Graphs should be showing all point sources of nutrient release as well as showing temperature of water the algae is in and speed and direction of currents transporting that nutrient and/or algae.

Climate alarmism nonsense about carbon is slowing down science and business and prosperity worldwide.

But at least now you can perhaps see there is no big cliff where the flat world ends, at least you can now see algae is linked to change in icebergs and climate.

Do you know of any graph that proves nutrient at the poles is somehow all sourced from icebergs?

Try looking into sewage nutrient pollution from Indian Ocean coasts and waters.

JF Aus

Quote:

"Scientists have observed an increase in carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface for the first time. The researchers, led by scientists from the US Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface over an eleven-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising CO2 levels from fossil fuel emissions.

The influence of atmospheric CO2 on the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth (also called the planet’s energy balance) is well established. But this effect has not been experimentally confirmed outside the laboratory until now. The research is reported Wednesday, Feb. 25, in the advance online publication of the journal Nature."

I'm wondering; JS Aus, how Lake Poopo in Bolivia dried up? The lake was something like 1,100 square kilometres in size. Also, Lake Titicaca is shrinking. The source of water for these lakes are glaciers, how do glaciers regress?

Just like Anthony Watts from WUWT, you are arguing from an economic viewpoint, quote:

"Climate alarmism nonsense about carbon is slowing down science and business and prosperity worldwide."

Climate science provides disciplines not allied to economics.

The Oceans are warming which have an impact on climate:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/half-the-oceans-warming-has-come-in-the-last-couple-decades/

Whether climate change is natural or man made, many areas are already being impacted at huge cost. A recent example being the completely out of season flooding of the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers.

What do you plan on pushing for, a business as usual approach only makes it worse.