Hi Sancho, thanks for that. I also use CAPS for emphasis because this forum doesn't seem to allow italics? I wish this forum had just a few formatting buttons for nicer presentation?

Anyway, thanks again for your comment. I actually suspect that MeMe is a greenie doing some reverse psychology "thang" to portray skeptics as trolling fools that can't comprehend simple arguments. I'm no scientist, but at least I can read the executive summaries and understand when someone like Plimer is even remotely addressing the arguments with counter-arguments, or just missing altogether.

EG: MeMe’s “23 year” argument is so off target that it just illustrates how little comprehension "MeMe" has. Denial isn’t skepticism. There are plenty of “skeptical scientists” publishing questions on smallish “grey areas” in peer reviewed climate journals, but they all agree on CO2’s spectrometry-proven basic role, and at least comprehend the questions involved and give answers when questioned!

*MeMe* Perfect response. That is, if you wanted to portray yourself as either dishonest or dense! I'll break it down real easy like.

"The End of The World As We Know It" (TEOTWAWKI) by climate change was never projected for any time soon. Real trouble starts later this century IF we continue on the current course. Asserting that the climate community has prophesied doom around now just shows how retarded or dishonest you are, but an accurate handling of the truth is not something sly, nasty, deceitful, attention seeking internet trolls ever really bother with: they just love the attention! And here I am feeding your addiction by even replying to you?

(I guess I'm always shocked that people can go so low, and honestly want to see them at least TRY to engage the subject they are trolling in!)

Whatever you do MeMe, don’t address how we know what Co2 does (spectrometry) or by how much (the Radiative Forcing Equation). By all means, do continue to rant and babble incoherently about conspiracy theories in your own imagination! You’re just saving me any real work.

Come on, here boy! Here boy! RANT! Goooood boooooy, gooooood booooy, want a biscuit

After 23 years of predictions and cooling and no climate crisis, we are left with a self fulfilling prophecy that none of you can prove, only hope for. Why? Why do you warmies hope and pray for this misery by stretching logic to childish extreams?
We deniers reason, we don't "feel" and "believe" and hope for my kids to die on a dead planet.
You warmies will be both cursed and laughed at very soon.
Your cave man fear mongering will be remembered.

Hi everyone,
sorry for "feeding the troll" and trying to engage MeMe... I am honestly both fascinated, frustrated, and disgusted by the mentality of someone just repeating the same disproved illogical rant again and again and again.... without ever being polite enough to maturely discuss their bizarre assertions. What on earth could possibly motivate them? But, again, my fault, and I apologise to the list for trying.

It would probably be a much more polite thread if we had some MODERATORS coming in here now and then to MOD the trolls, and I might not resort to cranky anti-troll posts like my post above, which I would gladly encourage moderators to delete certain offensive phrases from. But there it is. Never wrestle a troll, you just get filth all over you and the troll likes it!

Is Online Opinion going to recruit more moderators to help out with this? I've been in science forums run by volunteers where trolls like MEME and cranky old men like myself are pulled up for their behaviour long ago. Is the character of Australia's political discourse going to be allowed to degenerate to this school-yard brawl?

Again I apologise to the list for trying with MEME, and wish you all well, even the THINKING sceptics because there's hope for you (but not for hardened trolls like MEME).

MeMe, if having the last word helps you think you've somehow "won" then by all means, repeat "23 years blah blah blah you warmies blah". Go for it. Be my guest. But no one else here is fooled.

Over and out.

Sure, call me a troll. It's otherwise known as an opposing view so chill and open your mind to the world of global warming denial.
We deniers are all former believers don't forget. I for one am a long time enviro and a responsible one at that. I’m a former member of the Union of Concerned Scientists, only because I qualified with having $18.00 for membership. They take anyone. So much for “science” in this what’s hot and what’s not cultural issue of media, not science.
You warmies moralize so called "science" when all along the only science involved here is opportunism, politics and corporate media hype. There is wide spread scientific debate out there and in the end it’s the majority that you warmies will follow so try and get ahead of the curve. A new generation is going to provide a backlash to your decaying fear mongering.
How is “precaution” science?
How is 23 years of failed predictions proof of a climate crisis?
How is La Nina stronger than GWing?
How is warming proof of SUV’s causing anything?
How is the NOAA’s admission of 10 years of North American cooling not reasonable enough for you faithful warmies?
Stop moralizing your self fulfilling prophecy and detracting us from real environmentalism by calling the GWing issue “pollution” and “energy” and “saving the planet” just long enough to see how this dead theory is leading environmentalism down the wrong road.
Shame on all of you for perpetuating this cave man mentality for so long and needlessly scaring our children.
Doubt, question and challenge. That is real science.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”

To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.

Can you link to those data, so we know you're not making it up?

In my experience, the sources skeptics get their information from usually have as much credibility as Tom Cruise on psychiatry.