Dear Raycom,

The Greenhouse effect keeps the temperature on Earth 33 C above what it would otherwise be.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

CO2 levels have risen dramatically through the burning of fossil fuels.

Temperature levels have risen as a result.

This sir is physics. What part of the physics do you either not agree with or dismiss?

It might not sit well with your politics but it really is as simple as that.

Steel,

You are quite incorrect. CO2 does not drive Temperature, science clearly shows the inverse I.e. Temperature drives CO2, this is fact, but the mantra has been to show the reverse.

Interestingly 80 million square miles (twice the land mass area of Australia) has benefited from the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years, with new vegetation cover globally, another fact inconveniently missing from the conversation. Just another inconvenient truth eh!

Get your science correct and you will discover the reality of the folly of AGW.

Rusty Reflux has stuck his malfunctioning head back into the debate where he is regularly trounced for his baseless support of the climate fraud.
Back again, Rusty, with no support by way of science, just your dishonesty.
Refer us to science which shows any measurable human effect on climate, Reflux. You could not do so before, which is why you went away, having demonstrated that your sole basis for your support of the climate lie is your dishonesty.
How you gained membership of the Flat earthers is puzzling. I thought they had more self respect than to associate with people who have so blatantly proved their dishonesty, as you have done.
You are dead wrong in the "science" you put forward, demonstrating your ignorance of any climate science.

Dear Geoff of Perth,

You wrote;

“You are quite incorrect. CO2 does not drive Temperature, science clearly shows the inverse I.e. Temperature drives CO2, this is fact, but the mantra has been to show the reverse.”

What are you talking about?

Here is a link to a small, simple experiment being replicated by school kids through the NOAA education initiatives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ

Look this is pretty simple, the physics says if you increase the amount of CO2 in an atmosphere there will be a corresponding rise in temperature if an IR source is provided.

You either agree with the physics or you are a flat earther. Your call.

Dear Leo Lane,

How have you been travelling my little friend? I think last time we spoke you had been deeply afflicted by a form of Tourettes which had you fixated on the word 'fraud-backer'. Has that now been dropped for 'dishonest'?

Ahh another thing has come back to me, I'm sure you were at some stage touting Bob Carter as a climate scientist. That was a great laugh. Well good to see you are still here to provide some giggles. Take care.

Physicists lack data on ocean algae plant matter areal coverage and density and links to weather and climate.

Climate science is therefore very incomplete.

Yes, Reflux, Bob Carter is no longer with us, but it is wort remembering his comment on the failed CO2 hypothesis of the mendacious IPCC, which you have mistaken for current science.
“our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an 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 of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ZUVPX02KD1UHZQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/08/nrclimate08.xml&page=2
So, Rusty, you are referring to a failed hypothesis. The laboratory science to which you refer does not work in the real world, where there are far more facors affecting climate, than just CO2.
You have no science to support your fraudulent assertion of human caused global warming. Even if you were right about CO2, the human contribution is 3% against Nature’s 97%, so the human contribution is trivial, and not measurable. I am making you less ignorant, so you will have to rely more on your dishonesty, if you continue to support the climate fraud. If you are not beyond help, I hope this education helps you, but I expect that the flat eathers will kick you out for your unscientific attitude.