Here is Richard Muller looking for "The Suns Evil Twin Red Dwarf" "Nemesis" "Plant X" "Nibiru".
https://youtu.be/3YxFtLFybeA?t=1h11s

Jennifer Marohasy,

Discovery of the largest ever under-ice algae bloom in 2012 was likened to "finding the Amazon rainforest in the middle of the Mojave Desert."
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/10/world/phytoplankton-mega-bloom-eco-solutions/

The ICESCAPE mission leader previously thought under-ice blooms were impossible. The discovery was a complete surprise.

I think it obvious AGW, IPCC and Kyoto associated science has not measured and assessed such under-ice algae, or heat retaining capabilities of ocean algae plant matter.

N.B.
In the Executive Summary at the following link, "..... algal species and because of their heat retaining capabilities, ....."
http://www.fao.org/uploads/media/0901_Seed_Science_-_Microalgae_technologies_and_processes_for_biofuelsbioenergy_production_in_British_Columbia.pdf

In my opinion based on evidence of substance, increase in sewage and land use nutrient reaching ocean ecosystems is causing increase in algae and increase in algae and heat sometimes retained in algae is resulting in change to weather and climate.

Can anyone prove otherwise?

Some aspects of algae indicate why sea surface temperature sometimes increases, decreases or pauses.

The flea is promoting the tired old Richard Muller story. How many times has this clown “converted” to support of the climate fraud?
Judith Curry made an appropriate comment:
“ scientists are usually very respectful of disciplinary boundaries and don’t assume that they have the authority to challenge the expertise of scientists in other areas. However Muller freely assumes that authority despite his lack of any expertise in climatology or atmospheric physics.”.
https://judithcurry.com/2012/08/04/the-irresistable-story-of-richard-muller/

The flea supports the climate fraud purely on his dishonesty, but he tries to produce dishonesty from others to support his baseless assertion of a human effect on climate.
There is no science to show a measurable human effect on climate.

Leo

Still the same aggressive comments; the technique used when people have no real arguments.
Your quotation is very amusing on the basis you off handedly are critical of climate scientists. Yet, you have no real background in science.

A couple of articles you might enjoy, Leo.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/03/31/3765312/canadian-business-support-carbon-tax-increase/

British Columbia is doing well out of having a carbon tax.

Antarctic ice sheets in West Antarctica are receiving much study:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/31/science/global-warming-antarctica-ice-sheet-sea-level-rise.html?_r=1

And:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/04/160401-climate-change-sea-level-antarctica-ice-melt-physics/

The paper discussing this matter was published in Nature very recently and has open access:

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature17145.epdf?referrer_access_token=px-zRubs4M6aBBPl42_1GdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0M-pvJMg7VLINRa2mnTNsvXfjbAFNU4M9sSVFBNmnefzinIWT5DIW6fVmmjzqPkWPG0EWAexculA_Dh1H0gVAzIYAUjdsj8uznmBvFk8_blNOM5-opyiSaKMyaJis4af48A0kgec2kZ8QcJLEQ0CKHzo1BxzQZ7aHlC6ggm5qLKPX8C4yz0OZ4SKpsmFZlbgUA%3D&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com

Peter Sinclair discusses ExxonMobil.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgwg0JjuO40

A number of jurisdictions apart from New York State are now investigating ExxonMobil for fraud.

Factual comments which demolish your nonsense are “aggressive”, are they, flea?
You have again failed to refer us to any science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
You have nothing to support your position except your dishonesty, and your tactic of listing a pile of irrelevant sites, on which you hope people will waste their time, simply underlines the fact that besides having no qualification, you are ignorant of how to conduct yourself in an acceptable manner on this forum.

Leo

Experimentation and observation are a part of science.

From a previous post in relation to this article:

"Molecules of carbon dioxide (CO2) can absorb energy from infrared (IR) radiation. This animation shows a molecule of CO2 absorbing an incoming infrared photon (yellow arrows). The energy from the photon causes the CO2 molecule to vibrate. Shortly thereafter, the molecule gives up this extra energy by emitting another infrared photon. Once the extra energy has been removed by the emitted photon, the carbon dioxide stops vibrating."

From:

http://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation

A simple experiment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY

A more sophisticated experiment:

http://thiniceclimate.org/blog/details/1906/how-co2-traps-sun39s-warmth

The eleven year ARM research program was conducted in the natural environment:

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

Quote:

"Based on an analysis of data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's CarbonTracker system, the scientists linked this upswing in CO2-attributed radiative forcing to fossil fuel emissions and fires."

The only type of argument against the comments have been aggression and semantics, nothing of a science nature has been used to debunk what happens between IR and CO2.