//Global warming may end up depopulating the world as a side-effect, but it has no agenda. It's the laws of physics//

Save your breath, Max. AC has no interest in real science of any stripe, just made-up conspiracy theorist nonsense.

I'd say your best to approach to persuading him is to try and convince him that global warming is a dastardly ploy by Big Pharma - whom he distrusts - to increase the rate of tropical diseases by effectively expanding the tropics, so that they can sell us 'cures' that are really poisons for a hefty profit.

AC prefers absurd and implausible hypotheses like that to simpler but less entertaining theories. Apparently where he comes from, there is no such thing as Occam's razor.

The climate is changing whether people believe that man has had an influence or not.

The Larson C ice cap in Antarctica looks as though it will be venting a huge section of ice in the not too distant future.
Rain bombs are going off around the planet; causing death, loss of infra structure; homes ,cars, businesses are being destroyed or severely damaged.
Record temperatures are being recorded; permafrost thawing displays temperature going up, permafrost does not thaw unless there are constant high temperatures.

Given that global warming is happening contingency plans need to be made.

The question is whether man has had any impact on climate.

Fossil fuel takes millions of years to be created in they're raw form, we burn them and create emissions in a few moments in comparison to how long they were created.
A new study just released shows how climate warming began 180 years ago.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-25/climate-warming-'started-about-180-years-ago'/7773270

Very simple experiments to quite sophisticated ones show the interaction between CO2 and light. The ARM 11 year study conducted at two locations in the natural environment showed the interaction between radiated infrared and CO2. It is wrong to say there is no evidence to relate CO2 to warming. Data was taken on pretty well a daily basis for eleven years. The research underpins records of forcing in the atmosphere going back to 1979.

Radiative Forcing ARM Research:

http://www.nature.com/articles/nature14240.epdf?referrer_access_token=bjuEJ63ymUk1yz9-Sx7uv9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0MBUVHxgrRxcZhDCgss_A2aMRa8sFLO_Zqgdcoim1aBJ-ppgkwzC_X-LI_texKSoCxo8v99tBOdaXByc5w2vfUK6bQEvtZxBNKZCgRy1HIyrxTY_hAOl32yqeVv0D3PtJ4vbpvRlLZDhvLKrioDpSzGrLyRJaeQRsN5ONzqOxHEEmW5HA3RGBDDVjgPzDqGVcF4Fnq2RlZC6TONg2ccTYfeEliAQYz0GU2j8BvX9qq5-Q%3D%3D&tracking_referrer=www.theguardian.com

Table at the end of article showing 2.974 watts/square metre created by all greenhouse gases:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/aggi.html

It is well known that members of the IPA display a very strong neo conservative ideology and do not accept climate science. Even Anthony Watts, from WUWT, when asked why he became so involved in trying to debunk climate science stated he feared government regulation.

@Armchair Critic what comes first, the horse or carriage? The horse does. If you are going to use a reference to support your beliefs, it helps to actually read it first. See this http://www.dictionary.com/browse/read

@SteeleRedux, no worries. I suspect nothing will inform her enough to get real about this issue. She's a very unscientific scientist.
and also to @Max Green/Toni Lavis, the other key question is why is the IPA so anti-science? For a think tank they do not seem to think clearly at all, especially in supporting these very fringe conspiracy theories and the fake science outputs (weird beliefs) by people like Marohasy, Roberts, Bob etc.

I suspect the members of the IPA know precisely why they are so anti-science, conspiratorial and spreading disinformation as do those who accept the scientific conclusions of AGW.

@JF Aus "Does anybody have a link to data ..." Yes try https://scholar.google.com.au where you'll find the work by those ~30,000 climate related scientists. Of course you will not do that. That's how powerful and entrenched Beliefs are. This can really help: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/read There's no need to believe me.

There are good reasons why climate science ignores your beliefs about Algae. There's nothing to it. Growth in algae extent is one of the effects of increasing temperature of the Oceans and anthropogenic nutrient runoffs. You have it backwards. I'm not interested in your opinions about this nor your non-stop 'why' questions.

@Bob Fernley-Jones, Wednesday, 24 August Pg 20 asks "Where has she or me claimed there is no warming?" = Sophistry.

Bob is dropping the keywords that matter: "Where has she or me claimed there is no warming caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases and other human (anthropogenic) activities?" Answer: Everywhere!

A sophism is a specious argument for displaying ingenuity in reasoning or for deceiving someone. Bob's leading rhetorical question is not credible.

Bob please stop spreading clever lies, playing sophist word games, and falsely denying that Marohasy and yourself deny the validity and findings of AGW Science. Be honest about that because being deceptive makes your 'research' look even more untrustworthy to me.

Thomas O'Relly you should turn your professed high power analysis on yourself. I think every criticism you leveled at your many opponents can be levied against you.
President Eisenhower's famous speech against the "Military Industrial Complex' is still bandied about. The next paragraph warned about the Scientists research costs. Both are equally costing us billions for nothing more than enriching their authors.

@Bob Fernley-Jones Pg 20 "Where has she or me claimed there is no warming?"

Have the courage of your and her convictions not to deny your beliefs. It's your 'St Peter moment', I heard a Cock crow three times! :-)

Quoting Marohasy verbatim proves it.

1)
MARCH 21 OLO:
"... create a global warming trend where none previously existed"
"This warming, however, is neither catastrophic nor outside the bounds of natural variability."

2)
Does Jennifer believe that NASA and the UN are faking temperature data?

"...are remodelling temperature series so that they fit the theory of AGW .... cooling trends have been changed into warming trends”
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2016/08/speaking-truth-to-power/

3)
sustained cooling over the 20th Century
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2015/10/sceptics-and-alarmists-together-present-to-coalition-environment-committee/

4)
"You say 'the science' of global warming is true, but ... my article"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18459&page=11

5)
" the trend was flat, no warming for 17 years."
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/jennifer_marohasy_meets_alarmists_at_parliament_house_more_please/

6)
no trend i.e. no warming if you start the record back in 1890
http://www.galileomovement.com.au/media/JenniferMarohasy_re_BOM_TheAustralian_20150929.pdf

7)
"this record showed no warming since ... 1997-1998. [...] no warming trend in the UAH [...] the pause has been broken ... cause is not carbon dioxide."
http://ipa.org.au/news/3440/pause-in-global-temperatures-ended-but-carbon-dioxide-not-the-cause

8)
Flannery ... to JM ... she was wrong to state "we've had no warming for ten years".
http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/__documents/academic%20experts/Steffen2011January25.pdf

9)
JM OLO MARCH 21
[...] this record showed no warming [...] no warming trend in the UAH [...] temperatures back in ... were hotter than they are now.
[...] February 2016 is not that hot.
[...] so the present appears warmer relative to the past.
[...] create a global warming trend where none previously existed, [...] Bureau’s remodeling ... generating a global warming trends
http://climatechangedispatch.com/pause-in-global-temperatures-ended-but-carbon-dioxide-not-the-cause/

10)
Graphs Source JM used to claim "no warming" by Graham Lloyd
http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/p/homographs.html

That's called evidence of Marohasy using the words "no warming" in original context. Have a look

What ocean heating reveals about global warming? 2013
NOAA posts regularly updated measurements"
http://www.realclimate.org/images//heat_content2000m.png

The amount of heat stored in the oceans is one of the most important diagnostics for global warming, because about 90% of the additional heat is stored there. The atmosphere stores only about 2% ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming

Dear Thomas,

I do take your earlier point.

Jennifer posted this link earlier in the thread;

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/4000-years-of-climate-in-one-chart.php/climate-civilization-gisp-chart

This graph has gone through numerous incarnations but was originally from a climate skeptic geologist called Eastbrook;

http://i0.wp.com/hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/easterbrook_fig5.png?resize=480%2C360

Here is a good history of the graph and an explanation of why it was so badly misinterpreted by him;

http://hot-topic.co.nz/easterbrooks-wrong-again/

Obviously the skeptic crowd can't let it be and it keeps appearing, often as with Jennifer's post, without explanation, as though is is expected to be so definitive that it doesn't need words. Each time the criticisms leveled at it results in subsequent incarnations being tweeked.

What I find particularly amusing is the imposing of HadCRUT satellite temperature data over icecore data. This is something the rightwing chattering classes including Jennifer went mental over when Mann did the same with tree ring data.

It seems what is bad for the goose is good for the gander.

Rampant hypocrisy has never been all that attractive.