On my side:
1. 97% OF THE OPINIONS THAT MATTER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#/media/File:Cook_et_al._(2016)_Studies_consensus.jpg

Every National Academy of Science and credible private scientific institution on the planet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

2. THE DEMONSTRABLE LAWS OF PHYSICS OF CO2, see:-
* Mythbusters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
* The candle demonstration at 90 seconds in. Candle demonstration goes for a minute only.
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/

3. THE RADIATIVE FORCING EQUATION which measures how much incoming radiation not only warms the planet, but is trapped from exiting back out to space, which is an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs per second!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

4. THE WORLD’S TOP 4 TEMPERATURE DATABASES
NASA
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01/february_2016_s_shocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/

WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
“Geneva, 21 July 2016 (WMO) _ Global temperatures for the first six months of this year shattered yet more records, and mean that 2016 is on track to be the world’s hottest year on record.”
http://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-climate-breaks-new-records-january-june-2016

THE MET OFFICE
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature

NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

5. DRY LANDS GETTING DRYER, WET AREAS GETTING WETTER
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120521104631.htm
https://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php/en/climate-science-highlights/463-wet-regions-getting-wetter-dry-regions-drier-as-planet-warms

6. THE OCEANS GETTING WARMER, SHRINKING ICE SHEETS, GLACIERS RETREATING, ACIDIC OCEANS, DECREASED SNOW COVER, AND SEA LEVEL RISE.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

On the denialist's side is Peter Bolt and other anti-science loonies.

Billyd,

As expected, no apologies, not even a nod of acknowledgement of your 'error'. Just more of the same.

The bottom line is that you misused quotes because:

1) we too thick to understand the original article
2) are happy to behave entirely unethically to try to win a point.

Either way, someone who can and should be ignored as unworthy of polite consideration.

Max.

When you are able to understand, and correctly represent, the issues, then you will be in a position to squark your circular illogic.

As it is, you have completely failed to understand the issues of climate policy, and are only begging the question.

You can't use a thermometer to read off what the tax rate should be, you fool. You're literally not understanding what you're talking about.

Answer my questions.

"When you are able to understand, and correctly represent, the issues, then you will be in a position to squark your circular illogic."
Please demonstrate where I have shown circular logic. Do you deny the very laws of physics around greenhouse gases?

"As it is, you have completely failed to understand the issues of climate policy, and are only begging the question."
As it is, you have completely failed to understand the issues of fossil fuel's finiteness, and that not only will it run out one day, but that our whole civilisation depends on the cheap energy we have become accustomed to. It's time to develop alternatives, especially as peak coal looms later this century!

"You can't use a thermometer to read off what the tax rate should be, you fool. You're literally not understanding what you're talking about."
When you call people a FOOL in here, you break the forum rules. I was so disgusted by your immature behaviour in the previous post (and it wasn't even to me!), that I reported your last post and it was deleted. When you can behave like an adult, I might answer some questions - if I can. I don't pretend to be a climate scientist. But at least I've got the common sense to respect them!

But as to policy: I don't care if we use a carbon trading scheme, a carbon tax, or just downright NATIONALISE the energy sector and get the government rolling cheap factory produced breeder reactors off the production line. The policy actually bores me! I just want to see the job getting done.

Here we go again;
I wish they would make up their mind.
The recent report of ideal farming conditions, plenty of rain, high
crop yields and a promise of climate change providing plenty of good rain seasons.
The farmers are saying about globabl warming; more more more !

Anyway the whole argument is redundant, it doesn't matter whether it is
true or not, there is not enough affordable coal, gas & oil to cause
global warming if it is true.

Bazz,
Do the math buddy!

Limit = 2 degrees: IPCC says we can’t go above 2 degrees or we get into feedbacks
565 gigatons tons CO2 allowance before we get to 2 degrees
Therefore the 2,795 gigatons fossil fuel reserves are 5 times more than we should burn
That means 80% of the fossil fuels on the books of companies today should never be mined!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuCGVwJIRd0