Yes, flea, another pile of irrelevant nonsense.
Even an incompetent ignoramus would understand that to justify your position you need science to show that human emissions have a measurable effect on climate.
You do not have it, because there is no such science. The climate fraud relies on dishonest assertions of scientists like Hansen, Karl and many others, and the support of dishonest people like yourself, with no science to support their assertions.
Like you, they reject science, and support lies.

An example of the dishonesty of one of the fraud promoters, NOAA, flea:
the organisation that is the world's leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.
A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4192182/World-leaders-duped-manipulated-global-warming-data.html#ixzz52iSdwuGT

Follow us:

Leo

The matter of Karl et al's research has been dealt with previously.
David Rose, the author of your article has been shown to be wrong on a number of occasions.
The article you mentioned was critical of Thomas Karl el al's research, the research has been validated.

http://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise

Quote:

"What he fails to mention is that the new NOAA results have been validated by independent data from satellites, buoys and Argo floats and that many other independent groups, including Berkeley Earth and the UK’s Met Office Hadley Centre, get effectively the same results."

http://blog.ucsusa.org/peter-frumhoff/david-rose-attack-climate-scientists

The Union of Concerned Scientists provides a quote from the Editor of Science:

"Jeremy Berg, editor of Science, firmly rejects the notion of a “rush to publish”: “The article by Karl et al. underwent handling and review for almost six months [longer than average for this journal]. Any suggestion that the review of this paper was ‘rushed’ is baseless and without merit. Science stands behind its handling of this paper, which underwent particularly rigorous peer review.” "

Bates, the scientist Rose centred his article on; when interviewed by Associated Press stated:

"However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.”

“It’s really a story of not disclosing what you did,” Bates said in the interview. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form.”"

Also:

"“The study has been reproduced independently of Karl et al — that’s the ultimate platinum test of whether a study is to be believed or not,” McNutt said. “And this study has passed.”"

http://apnews.com/3fc5d49a349344f1967aadc4950e1a91/major-global-warming-study-again-questioned-again-defende

I am well aware, flea, of failed attempts by fraud promoters to discredit exposure of the tactics of a fraud promoter like NOAA.
Here is what an honest climate scientist, Judith Curry, says:” She noted how the “consensus” scheme has put climate science on the “wrong track” by “shinning a light” on only one small part of climate science, that being greenhouse gas emissions, while ignoring the huge role played by natural climate variation. This political approach has been a great disservice to efforts needed to truly understand our complex climate system and also greatly mislead policy makers.
Dr. Curry noted the ineffectual provisions of the Paris Climate Agreement where even if all countries meet their proclaimed emission reductions targets the result is only about a 0.2 Degrees C global temperature lowering by year 2100. She further noted that since the climate models run “hot” the actual likely global temperature reduction would be much less.
Regarding claims of accelerating sea level rise allegedly caused by human greenhouse gas emissions Dr. Curry noted that sea level has been rising for the last 10,000 years as a result of the end of the last ice age, that the UN ICC AR5 report data shows that sea level rise in the period of the 1940 to 1950’s was consistent with recent sea level rise levels, that large continental ice mass melting might drive future large sea level rise but that Antarctica ice mass is growing while Greenland ice mass is variable in behavior.
She concluded that “there is no evidence, so far, that human activities are influencing sea level rise”.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/11/dr-judith-curry-explains-the-reality-of-bad-climate-science-and-bad-politics/

Leo

Your reference to David Rose was a beat up; shown to be wrong by the very man whom he quotes.

Dr Curry is a contrarian scientist; fair enough, she has stated that she tends to be a maverick like Dr James Hansen.
Dr Hansen takes a different view, there are a number of hyperlinks to science in article:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/james-hansen-sea-level-rise_us_56effb51e4b084c67220c630

Larson C broke off from Antarctica earlier in 2017, said to be roughly the size of US State of Delaware.

The concern expressed by climate scientists is that grounding lines of ice sheets are moving towards glaciers.

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-ocean-interactions/grounding-lines/

Also:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014GL060140/full

And there are many more references.

Mapping using radar and laser altimetry instruments have been used to establish grounding lines through Project IceBridge. That is, data is used to inform scientists about moving grounding lines and sea level rise will ultimately be the result.

Dr Curry stated as an analogy, from your reference:

“The collapse of the consensus on cholesterol and heart disease – that one collapsed overnight. I can only hope that sanity will eventually prevail with the climate problem as well.”

Doctors are still very concerned about cholesterol levels, and there has been a reduction in the amount of cholesterol deemed to be safe. A very poor analogy presented by Dr Curry; equivalent to anti-vaxxers views.

Gauwd, we are still wasting time on this AGW debate.
The basic overriding facts are these;
The ERoEI of oil has fallen from 100 to 10 over75 years.
The ERoEI of coal has fallen from 80 to 10 over 60 years.
The Auckland Uni Coastal Institute report since 1940s that
65% of Pacific Islands are larger, 30% are the same & the rest are smaller.
Solar & Wind cannot replace the present electricity system.
Solar & wind are the most expensive electricity generators.
The energy needed to manufacture, install & maintain is greater than can be produced.
Batteries are a lost dream, UK would need 14,000 the size of Sth Aus's

The oil industry is unable to replace its expended reserves.
The Shell Oil Company has announced it is making long term
preparations to leave the oil industry.

When will you all wake up that the only thing on the horizon is
Nuclear Power of one form or another.

Stop dreaming and come down to earth and the very urgent need to get
stuck into the new energy regime while we have the energy to build it !