My comment here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17895#317164 shows that human caused GHG emissions are not dangerous, let alone catastrophic.

My comment here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17895#317134 shows that the 9.7 million people who have responded to a UN online survey have voted climate change the least important issue. They do not want money wasted on it when there are much more important issues to deal with.

The Climate Industry is a $1.5 trillion per year industry according to the Climate Change Business Journal, reported in Insurance Journal here: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm . That's a massive waste of money delivering no net-benefit whatsoever.

But importantly, the major inputs to the models used for estimating the costs and benefits of climate change exaggerate the temperature change and the damages.

Cook et al, 2013, assert 97% of climate scientists agree that most recent warming was caused by humans. The claim is bogus. Only 0.5% of the 12,000 abstracts reviewed explicitly stated that. And even that figure is overstated because of ratings misjudgements; What is there a 97% consensus about?

A reanalysis of his data shows just 0.5% of the abstracts analysed “explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of global warming” and 8% “explicitly states that humans are causing warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact”.

I agree with the 97% of the abstracts - that made implicit or explicit statement about attribution - that state humans are having some effect on the climate, but we don’t know how much. Nor do we know whether GHG emissions are doing more good or more harm.

Leo

The Berkley reference in relation to temperature above showed 5 separate projections of temperature from 5 different sources. They all show a trend of temperatures going up.

The first sentences from the Berkley reference already provided states:

"In recent weeks we’ve seen a political controversy over NOAA’s adjustments to temperature records, with accusations from some in congress that records are being changed to eliminate a recent slowdown in warming and to lend support to Obama administration climate policies. This makes it sound like the NOAA record is something of an outlier, while other surface temperature records show more of a slowdown in warming. This is not true; all of the major surface temperature records largely agree on temperatures in recent years. This includes independent groups like Berkeley Earth that receive no government funding. A record warm 2014 and 2015 (to date) has largely eliminated any slowdown in temperatures, whether data is adjusted or not."

Temperature for 2015 is on track to be the highest recorded by quite a margin.

The reference below shows the Japan's Meteorological Agency temperature and graphs by WUWT:

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/charts-and-statistics-on-global-warming-climate-change-2015-12?r=US&IR=T

ant

The data do not support your theory.

Nothing new in the further post from the flea. Denial of doctoring of the temperature record, the usual stalling by denial, which will eventually crumble, as it always does.
The usual “hottest year” lie, for 2015, the same proclamation as for 2014, now shown to be baseless.2014 was not the hottest year as asserted by the climate liars
It is irrelevant anyway, flea, because you have no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate, you only have liars who make baseless assertions that it is human caused. Your posts are unsuitable for a sensible, honest discussion, flea, so give it up.

Jardine

You say:

"The data do not support your theory."

You make comments such as:

"Major Agencies such as NASA, NOAA, CSIRO et al are agreed that your beliefs about anthropogenic climate change are wrong and unscientific."

Leo

Is consistent in his ad hominem attack, he writes:

"Your posts are unsuitable for a sensible, honest discussion, flea, so give it up."

They offer no evidence and so their comments are meaningless.

A graph produced by Bob Tisdale from WUWT:

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/56740a52dd089529598b4750/image.jp

No temperature increase, Leo?

Peter Lang

Judging by your comment you are somebody else who is led by politics instead of science?

Quote:

"I expect Australian school teachers (led by the far Left Teachers Union) have been telling their pupils to vote …. after ‘educating’ them on how to vote of course."
Anthony Watts has stated that the rationale for being involved with WUWT is due to being worried about big government taking people's rights.
In the long run ideology cannot withstand science.

Further news from InsideClimateNews, they have been vindicated in relation to their investigations into ExxonMobil.

Quote:

"The American Petroleum Institute together with the nation's largest oil companies ran a task force to monitor and share climate research between 1979 and 1983, indicating that the oil industry, not just Exxon alone, was aware of its possible impact on the world's climate far earlier than previously known."

First sentence from:

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco

The Arctic is in a mess:

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

The Arctic has much influence over climate of the Northern Hemisphere and Ocean currents.
Concern is being expressed in relation to the Gulf Stream slowing down

ant

What does it matter to you whether other people share your beliefs about the climate?