GY.

I would argue Gary is controlled by his biases as we all are, and has accurately articulated his bias. There is the problem in a nut-shell.

The game is to swing the bias of resistance in the opposite direction. The method is called propaganda. That's how SSM won the day.

Who has control of the propaganda machinery wins. Thus, down with the ABC, etc.

Earlier, Lego wrote "The Himalayan glaciers did not melt." that is true, it would take decades for that to occur. In the CBC reference, a former Research Station Manager makes mention of how melting is happening in the Himalayas and Andes. Nothing remarkable about that; but, in a film attached to article a glacial lake is shown, where the water had been behind a ice bank. The glacial lake is created by melting water; such lakes are reported in the Himalayas, the water being held by rubble. In the Himalayas those glacial lakes present danger for communities below them.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/national-yukon-glaciers-climate-change-kaskawulsh-1.4873035?fbclid=IwAR3qUCT43Xe49toQh4L8Cej8eaEyiUzm3A81c2FKfUtg8NPRZsr29RztKBU

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/90185/as-glacial-lakes-grow-so-do-the-risks

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/glacial-lakes-threaten-himalayan-dams/

Observation provides information that the number of glacial lakes are increasing in the Himalayas, that displays melting. Observation also shows how there are side effects from glacial changes, these are facts, the present is different to what was observed in the past, indisputable (watch the film).

My point being from fiction opinions might be formed, those opinions can easily gain different interpretations as shown by Garry and Graham. Wikipedia articles are interesting, though not always accurate, or not the best reference, as Greg Hunt found out. The other interesting fact is that P C Snow died in 1980, his points do not necessarily stand up in 2018. Science has moved a long way since 1980, it was a time when satellites had just begun to provide data about the natural world. Also, other high tech instrumentation was not used as shown in the film.

Where are the high level references that knock climate science out, the science of climate change has been in existence almost two centuries when taking into account Fourier. Experimentation was completed with CO2, in the mid 1800s by Foote and Tyndall. Prior to climate change denial, fossil fuel companies were already made aware of the problems. There is a plethora of documents to prove the point, an example:

http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1979-exxon-memo-on-potential-impact-of-fossil-fuel-combustion/

The title of the piece in Online Opinion was “An important essay by Richard Lindzen”. Don Aitkin in his introduction, gives a link to a speech made by Lindzen for the Global Warming Policy Foundation: https://www.thegwpf.org/richard-lindzen-global-warming-for-the-two-cultures/.

On the face of it, Lindzen's speech/lecture seemed designed to bolster his 'Iris' theory which I'll try and summarise in my layman's way:

The Greenhouse Effect (and thus Global Warming) will be offset (or is being offset) by the dissipation of upper level cirrus clouds. These clouds ordinarily stop - to some extent - the heat from our atmosphere reaching a point where it 'escapes' (radiates) beyond our atmosphere. However Lindzen uses the greenhouse effect to suggest that natural (convective?) processes are interacting with / can be expected to change the 'cirrus cloud barrier' to the effect that the cirrus part of our greenhouse blanket is being reduced and no longer contains the warmth within our warming atmosphere as it did before. That is, the warming of the atmosphere produced by our greenhouse gas emissions, will not result in global warming to the extent predicted by other scientists.

Lindzen's speech also included reference to "Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene" /Steffen et al. PNAS 14Aug2018. [ Here at http://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252.full.pdf ] I'd hazard a short summary of Steffen et al. in the following way:

Our human release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere risks our reaching a 'tipping point' at which our planet becomes 'Hothouse Earth'.

Postscript:
GrahamY and diver dan: please, my name is not Gary...

garrystannus@hotmail.com

We constantly see reference to “reduction of human emissions”, and “carbon pollution”, as if it were established science, when in fact there is no science to demonstrate any measurable human effect on climate.
The UN failed in its attempt to show that human generated CO2 caused global warming, but this did not cause any revision of the climate fraud promoters’ assertions. In fact they coined the phrase “carbon pollution”, to refer to the lie that human emissions affected global warming.
Carrbon is the basis of all life on earth, and these clowns refer to it as pollution.
Carbon dioxide is not a strong greenhouse gas.
The strongest greenhouse gas in our atmosphere is water vapour.
We have been stupid enough to accept the lie, by the fraud promoters, of “carbon pollution”.
In their twisted logic, the next target is “water pollution”
We have shown that we are stupid enough to accept such nonsense.
Something must be done about global warming.
The actions of the fraud promoters must be criminalised

Leo

We need CO2, we need insulin, we need other hormones to survive, and we need oxygen etc.
Inject a small quantity of insulin into a healthy person and that will lead to death. Go into an environment where there is only CO2 and that leads to death. Those same principles can be applied to CO2 in the atmosphere, where an excess of CO2 creates problems. Acknowledged by fossil fuel corporations through the science completed by their scientist employees, and research commissioned in the 1970s and 1980s.

Water vapour is created by normal processes of transpiration and evaporation and in such a situation remains in a state of homeostasis. When extra warmth is created, the amount of water vapour increases.
The oceans are warming as is the atmosphere creating factors necessary for more water vapour to be created. Heat water in a kettle and what is a by product?
There is no doubt that water vapour is a strong greenhouse gas, but, it needs extra warmth to generate more volume over the state of homeostasis. Please provide science to show otherwise.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html#.W9yu1KdL2uU

Quote: "However, a vicious cycle exists with water vapor, in which as more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere and the Earth’s temperature rises, more water evaporates into the Earth’s atmosphere, which increases the temperature of the planet. The higher temperature atmosphere can then hold more water vapor than before."

It took millions of years of sequestration of organic materials to create fossil fuels; in comparison, we are burning those in an instant.

Leo, why is 1998 no longer used as a datum point by deniers?

Thanks for your confirmation of your absolute ignorance of the topic, flea. There is no excuse for the use of the term “carbon pollution”.
There is no excuse for the use of the term “denier”, which you have again used. You are unable to reference any science to show any measurable human effect on climate, so there is nothing to deny. You are repeating your ignorant nonsense, but no one was in doubt of your ignorance. It is obvious in everything you say..
Your attempt to mirror the failed IPCC assertion on carbon emphasises you complete lack of understanding of climate science.