Here is what an honest, competent climate scientist said about the “science” of the consensus, bigmouth. There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, bigmouth, so you have not posted it anywhere, it does not exist, so it is pointless you lying about it any more, bigmouth.
“Robert Carter, a specialist in paleo-environmental and paleo-climatic topics and author of the book, “Climate: the Counter Consensus,” shows how this hypothesis of dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) fails. Below are some excerpts from a long post titled “Global Warming: Anthropogenic or Not?” See full post here.
Many different lines of evidence can be used to test the Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis (DAGW). Here are five pieces of evidence, all of which are based upon real world empirical data.
1. Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%.
Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. Hypothesis fails.
2. During the 20th century, a global warming of between 0.4̊C an...... the rate and magnitude of 20th century warming falls well within the envelope of natural climate change. Hypothesis fails, twice.
3. If global temperature is controlled primarily by atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, then changes in carbon dioxide should precede parallel changes in temperature.
In fact, the opposite relationship applies at all time scales. Temperature change precedes carbon dioxide change by about 5 months during the annual seasonal cycle, and by about 700-1000 years during ice age climatic cycling. Hypothesis fails.
4. The The null hypothesis – because it is the simplest consistent with the known facts – is that global climate changes are presumed to be natural, unless and until specific evidence is forthcoming for human causation.
So far, no evidence has been presented to disprove the null hypothesis.
https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/failure-of-the-anthropogenic-global-warming-hypothesis/

This from our resident dill:

"DA [Aitken] falsely claims: "... but the UK Met Office did indeed agree that there was a hiatus in warming"

Don, that's a provable lie. Why are you lying about this? "

Provable lie. A provable lie which he then proceeds, in true Mr O' fashion to conspicuously not prove.
Hilariously he says this after I'd already posted links to several articles from the MET discussing the pause.

But as we know, the actual facts are entirely unimportant to Mr O'

Stand by for more lunacy from our resident child. Don't expect however to see the provable lie proven.

Leo

Your comments in relation to Carter are nothing more than a fallacious deferral to authority commentary.

The amount of greenhouse gas forcing in the atmosphere has been measured since 1979 by NOAA. A huge degree of hubris is required to deny these measures.

But:

Many times I have stated that regardless of whether climate change has been impacted by man or is a natural phenomena; planning needs to occur.

View the photo of the North Pole and ponder on it.

Decades ago National Geographic provided articles about hardy souls moving across the Arctic sea ice to visit the North Pole. Under current circumstances such expeditions are not possible.

http://greatwhitecon.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/unReal-Pole-20160908.jpg

Off East Antarctica around 6,000 square kilometres of sheet ice is sooner or later going to calve off the Larson C ice sheet.

To ignore what is happening with the climate is lunacy.

To suggest that lay people know better than almost 200 years of climate research by thousands of scientists is laughable. It is the mother of all conspiracy theories.

Here we are, people who should be friendly are abusing each other over
something that cannot happen because of the simple fact that we cannot
afford to get all the fossil fuels out of the ground needed to cause
the projected temperature rise.

You all should be arguing about another problem such as how to mix
the solar, wind, tidal or wave generation systems into a national grid.
How to decide on what backup system is needed, can we build economic
storage systems ?
Should we build nuclear power stations, can we afford them anyway ?

Surely there is enough to argue about there without insulting everyone
with a different opinion !

We must leave oil & coal before oil & coal leave us !

ant

There is no such scientific term as "denier", you fool. According to your stupid theory, the phlogiston theory was factually correct when it enjoyed a consensus of scientific support.

The data disprove your theory, you are denying the science, and you are being intellectually dishonest and you know it.

You know perfectly well that you have been completely disproved many times over, and have nothing to answer but only endless evasion and circularity and propaganda.

@Bazz
I agree.

@Jardine K. Jardine
Infantile!

@CHERFUL
"excuse my sceptiicism, Theyve been claiming the Barrier Reef has been dying since the early 1970's"

2012 - The 27–year decline of coral cover on the Great Barrier Reef and its causes
"Based on ... (2,258 surveys of 214 reefs over 1985–2012), we show a major decline in coral cover from 28.0% to 13.8% (0.53% y-1), a LOSS of 50.7% of initial coral cover." http://www.pnas.org/content/109/44/17995.full

There are hundreds of scientific research papers like this, see summary w more info: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY9p746teHE

@mhaze
Someone else pointed out the falsehood/lie too. Aitkin wrote: "the UK Met Office did indeed agree that there was a hiatus in warming" WITH an embedded url ref to: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/8/c/Changes_In_The_Climate_System.pdf
Nowhere does the UK Met Office write they "agree that there was a hiatus in warming" in that doc.

Obviously Aitkin was misleading his readers referring them to a Doc that does NOT SAY what he claimed it did.

It is 'possible' that was unintentional or incompetence but what he wrote is untrue on the face of it. I called it a 'Lie'.

I do not believe it was 'human error' by an 'expert' in academic writing but intellectually dishonest aka a Lie. What Aitkin said was false misleading, period! Credibility = Zero!

Global warming: How Skepticism became Denial by Spencer Weart
The conversation on global warming started in 1896 [...] The author points out that climate experts were initially strongly SKEPTICAL of the theory of global warming; it took a variety of EVIDENCE to gradually convince them that warming due to human emissions was likely.
"The public was guided away from this conclusion by a professional PR effort, motivated by INDUSTRIAL and IDEOLOGICAL concerns. DENIERS of the scientific consensus avoided NORMAL scientific DISCOURSE and resorted to AD HOMINEM ATTACKS that cast doubt on the ENTIRE Scientific community.."
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0096340210392966?journalCode=rbul20

Today it's the DENIERS who cry out that they are subject to ad hominem attacks. All it is are people critical of the content and falsity of their arguments and Deniers ridiculing anyone who disagrees with them.
-