I don’t hold with conspiracy theories , Over the top Co2 into the atmosphere is a proven fact of climate change. Ice melt is visibly accelerating. And we know what is causing it.
You are having trouble believing the most obvious of causes, man has had everything to do with climate change. Man has replaced repeated volcanic actions of days gone by burning fossil fuels.
If man is not the cause of climate change who or what is. Suppose you tell us the answer in your words. All you have done is deny every other cause I state. When you read that whole thread everyone is against climate change , but give no reasons. Are the rest of us seeing changes that are not there in your opinion.
Skeptic science is not science it’s a complete denial of any climatic change, or mans involvement

WE KNOW WHAT'S CAUSING CLIMATE CHANGE?

http://www.dailywire.com/news/2071/most-comprehensive-assault-global-warming-ever-mike-van-biezen

See above link. A few of what Mike van Biezen calls "the many scientific problems with assumption human activity is causing “global warming” or “climate change”":

1. Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today’s temperatures are unusual.

2. Satellite temperature data does not support the assumption that temperatures are rising rapidly.

3. Current temperatures are always compared to the temperatures of the 1980’s, but for many parts of the world the 1980’s was the coldest decade of the last 100+ years.

4. The world experienced a significant cooling trend between 1940 and 1980.

6. There is a natural inverse relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels.

7. The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes.

10. “Data adjustment” is used to continue the perception of global warming.

As for planet's future climate, alas, it is a ‘coupled non-linear chaotic system’; so ‘long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.’ (IPCC Third Assessment Report, 2001, p774)

Sounds like all of your non events came from the same place. The upswing of Co2 did not take place till 1950 and has gained pace ever since. There is no denying ocean temperatures have risen along with Co2 rise. It takes a rise in temperature to have ice melt, which is gaining pace along with ocean temperature rise.
The temperature of oceans effect our weather patterns, this is why we are experiencing weather events of magnified occurrence.
Climate change models are not correct because change is happening at a faster speed than anticipated. Co2 is the most common cause because of the massive upswing of concentrations since the 1950’s. No other single item shows up so much as Co2, as an atmospheric change.
To totally dismiss Co2 as a factor of climate change is a massive call, which can be cross checked with past events when there was massive amounts of Co2 in the atmosphere, mainly caused by volcanic actions in pre historic times.
A rise in ocean temperatures do not happen without a cause, and that is undercutting the ice caps resulting in sea level rise.
The world will get of burning fossil fuels. There will be resistance from those with vested interests. Sanity will prevail, albeit 22 years to late. World wide pollution has been rampant for far to long, and now causing problems that may never be isolated, mass extinction has happened in past events and no one can guarantee that will not happen again

Are any of you actually qualified as scientists? Can I get a show of hands so that I know who to take seriously because a lot of the comments I've read seem like a complete load of rubbish. One might as well be asking John Howard or Andrew Bolt or Tony Abbott for a scientific explanation on the causes and effects of global warming. Is there anybody out there who actually can use science to explain what is happening because I'm sick and tired of seeing ridiculous explanations from people who don't know any science let alone believe they are in a position to debate scientific evidence.

Mr O my problem is with scientists who whenever they are asked to look at something come up with the same answer. What is needed is more, much more research.
The Victorian Government wasted over one million dollars on a Carp report. All options were printed and, of course, what was needed was more research.
It is always the same, in fact in Eisenhower's famous 1950's speech warning of the Military-Industrial Complex the next paragraph warned of "Research".
This is my biggest problem as scientists will happily balls it all up and pontificate as if they know when they do not know. A triumph of overbearing confidence over their research.

Dear Bowyer,

I didn't ask whether or not people like scientists. I asked who among you is a scientist. And I assume by your response that you are not a scientist. Am I correct?