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?