Advice from bigmouth:” READ the original Science YOURSELF FIRST”
OK bigmouth, refer us to the science which shows any measurable human effect on climate. You do not have any such science, as you have been repeatedly asked to refer us to it, with the result that you talk nonsense and give no reference to any such science.
The term “denial” is just another baseless, dishonest slogan of fraud promoters like yourself, bigmouth.
There is no science to deny, so the term “denier” is just another fraud promoting lie.

Leo

Elsewhere you stated: "The flea posted a link to what he calls “science”."

Only a fool dismisses studies such as the one you have dismissed, Leo (OLO 10/9/16 11.53 pm):

http://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2016-046_0.pdf

A sign of the times:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/11/cost-bumpy-flights-air-turbulence-global-warming-united-airlines

Naturally Leo you have data to show that small planes and airlines are not impacted by turbulence created through extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
You can provide DATA that shows all this is but a hoax; a changing climate has been posited for the turbulence being created.

A quote from article:

"Williams said that at heights of around 10 to 12km (6-7 miles), a typical cruising altitude for a modern passenger jet plane, temperature changes caused by increased amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have the effect of making different layers of airflow move at increased speeds relative to each other. "

You should get in touch with these firefighters and tell them they are completely wrong:

http://www.outsideonline.com/2080116/unacceptable-risk-firefighters-front-line-climate-change

Leo

Scientists in reference provided pull apart notion of climate changing just through natural variability:

http://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/betsy-mccaughey-wake-up-obama-climate-change-has-been-happening-forever/

First sentences:

"The scientists unanimously qualify this article as misleading and flawed in its reasoning. The author asserts that “many scientists are predicting the onset of two or three centuries of cooler weather – which would mean bigger glaciers.” As the scientists point out, however, glaciologists have collected “crystal clear” evidence for accelerating glacier melt and retreat, which scientists overwhelmingly attribute to human-induced global warming, and scientific consensus warns that a continued rise in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations will produce further global warming."

A photo already referenced shows broken ice within a few kilometres of the North Pole, only a fool would not see the significance of that. The satellite photo is in perfect accord to what the scientists are stating in their critique.

A mathematician has worked out that should the average sea ice extent be taken for the whole year for maximum to minimum; then, the last year provides the lowest extent ever recorded. The last maxima was the lowest ever recorded. Normally, only maximum and minimum measures are provided officially for winter and end of the melting season.
Usually by mid September refreezing begins and the minima is recorded; that stage may not have yet been reached in 2016. Regardless, evidence suggests that the second lowest extent of sea ice will be recorded; and the 2012 record will remain.

Back to Don Aitkin: The distinction between true scepticism and denial

BA says "And I find myself saying, yet again, this awful, poorly argued, self-seeking paper has passed peer review? What have we come to in the journal world?"

Such as Marohasy's Abbot's self-seeking papers?

eg. They had to go all the way to the seriously flaky Wessex Institute of Technology, as no decent journal would touch it? http://www.witpress.com/elibrary/wit-transactions-on-ecology-and-the-environment/196/34171

Much could be said about about the Marohasy/John Abbot MO and their so-called "Papers" in "scientific journals" as displayed and promoted by Marohasy here and on their ClimateLab website.

Google search results include things like:

Wessex Institute of Technology is a big Scam and their conferences are ...
..... Wessex Institute is a big money making machine for Mr Brebbia by offering very ...
Dubious conference invitations. Just spam, or do these meetings ...
http://www.researchgate.net/.../Dubious_conference_invitations_Just_spam_or_do_th...

Jul 9, 2013 - These bogus and predatory conference invitations are becoming just ... I'd say that I get such mails for both journals and conferences on a ... may i ask you about the case of Wessex Institute of Technology(WIT)?do you have ...
List of Bogus Journals. Fake Journals. Bogus Science ie Pseudoscience Wessex Institute of Technology ·

REF: http://www.google.com.au/#q=%22Wessex+institute%22+journal+bogus%3F&gws_rd=cr

LOL - doesn't surprise me one little bit.

Intelligent and wise people plus REAL GENUINE SKEPTICS always check and triple check the purported 'facts' against the 'claims' being made. And much like 'Deep Throat' recommended on Watergate, always follow the money. ;-)

eg http://theaimn.com/coalition-environment-committee/ and
http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPbXkzb1RlVGJaZFU

One needs to make the effort to track down their various papers and look at the whole picture and not only the jigsaw pieces spread here and there.

Happy Daze or Happy Learning, it's up to yourself.

People can learn a lot from my more info LINKS, if they bother to look.

What you do will make little difference to the Arctic Sea Ice or the GBR. But accurate true knowledge can make a big difference in what you choose to do.

George Lakoff: How Brains Think: The Embodiment Hypothesis
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuUnMCq-ARQ
-

@Leo Lane @Jardine K. Jardine 'insist' on "refer us to the science which shows any measurable human effect on climate" blah blah blah

I have read every page of every IPCC Report. I understand it and also did extra research into the published science papers the IPCC reports relied upon. When I ogt stuck I used a Glossary, and Dictionary and then went to climate scientists to ask them questions and where additional info might be available to help me.

I spent about 15 years in my downtime doing my own homework, including in the other side which is the Energy Use Data for this planet past, present and future BEFORE I finally signed off and said, well that's all logical and true.

NO FREE DRINKS AT THIS BAR~!

I will not suffer fools, shills, nor trolls. It's said that "God helps those who help themselves" - you will get no help from me! Ever!

The evidence you seek is to be found here http://www.ipcc.ch and here http://scholar.google.com.au

GO FISH~!

The Dumbed Down Version of climate science for 3 year olds is as follows:

Q: When did scientists first discover that carbon dioxide levels were rising in the atmosphere due to human activity and that this could cause global warming?

A: The Earth’s climate is continually changing. Since the planet was born some 4.5 billion years ago, it has undergone ice ages and warm periods due to natural changes in its orbit around the sun and other factors on its surface. But since the Industrial Revolution, humans have been the main factor in the Earth’s warming.

Since pre-industrial times, the Earth’s surface has warmed some 1.5 degrees celsius. And with 2.4 million pounds of carbon dioxide being released into the air every second, we are on track to get a lot warmer still. So when did we realize climate change was happening and who is responsible?
[snipped]

by — BARBARA MICKELSON more at http://earthtalk.org/human-caused-global-warming

Don't waste your time asking again.

For me you two do not exist.
-

Cobber,
At the beginning you mentioned YECs, singling them out as being "unutterably convinced that they are correct". Yet, I'm not sure why you'd single them out as being different to yourself. For being totally convinced that your view is correct is a very human and almost universal trait. We pretty much all think we're right, most of the time. It's part of the psychology of people and how they hold to their convictions.

But I would agree with you that it would be good to read some of their stuff.