The Science is settled. There has Never been any evidence of anthropogenic global warming. There has only ever been a weak theory which was perpetrated for devious reasons by the UN and depended on Western guilt and corruption of scientists through selective grants for its longevity.

There is virtually no evidence of any sort of warming. It has been correctly identified as the greatest money scam of all time.

The real problem is that leaders of Western countries have bought into the whole deal and promised OUR money for an unspecified period of time to developing countries, many of which are corrupt and dangerous.

Mugabe and his ilk will be subsidised by us! Does anyone really think they care about climate change - the money will go to fund military and personal ambitions.

The head of the IPCC is Rajendra Pachauri former Railway Engineer and Head of Indian Oil company with shares in Carbon Trading companies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajendra_K._Pachauri

"We need to move on from whether climate change is real or not and ask, what can we do about it?"

Ah, the wonderful Precautionary Principle: Bad Things might happen so we have to Do Something Now. Or in other words: we need to move on from asking whether Santa Claus exists and ask, what kind of cake we should leave out for him?

But then AGW must be a serious threat -- since it's capable of changing temperature readings retrospectively, even from over 100 years ago:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/14/the-evolution-of-the-giss-temperature-product/

It's over guys:
"No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm

Next asks: What would the sceptics require?
A little of this would help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCVZXlvDcrk

--Bushfires are written-up as evidence of AGW.
The accumulation of natural debris/fuel, sometimes for decades, &
population expansion into bushlands was of no consequence ?
--Typhoons devastating river deltas are held- up as evidence of AGW.
The last fifty years of clearing natural cover and settlement of such marginal regions had no bearing?
--And each time we get a few hot days AGW advocates ( including, on occasion, our PM) cite it as evidence of AGW [ though I note they were strangely silently about the recent cold snap in the northern hemisphere which ironically started about the time of the Copenhagen conference-LOL]

I would have thought that any reputable scientist –and I’m told they’re the only sort to be found on the AGW side!– would tell you that such claims, being the shortest of short term measures, were highly suspect . But those reputable scientists behind AGW have been rather slow to debunk, or complicit, in such claims.

There are from time-to-time natural changes/cycles in the worlds climate:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16221874.500-born-in-a-storm.html

The real issue here is not changes in temperature but over population.
If you have a bucket half full of water –it takes a lot of perturbation to spill it.
On the other hand, if it is full to the brim the slightest disturbance is likely to cause a accident.

The problem is this time around (if indeed what we are seeing is a trend up –its hazardous to guess since the time frame for most measures is very short) is that we are packed to the rafters with people. There is little room to manoeuvre –there is little scope to accommodate/dampen perturbations.

In the past when climate change occurred , we simply retreated to a safer spot –now all the spots are owned.

Which is yet another reason we need – honesty--since if one was really committed to disaster mitigation,one would also be running hard on population REDUCTION,But we hear nary a word ---why?
Because the poor can’t be scammed!

HermanYutic,

You may have misunderstood the nature of this news item, which reads:
"No Rise of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Fraction in Past 160 Years, New Research Finds. ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere."

Which means, 45 PERCENT OF THE >1170 BILLION TONS OF CO2 emitted since the 18th century have remained in the atmosphere, pushing atmospheric CO2 concentrations from 280 ppm to 388 ppm. When the rise in CH4, N2O and Halocarbons (a total of 0.98 Watt/m2) is taken into account, CO2-equivalent levels are now at 455 ppm.

The latest report regarding CO2 retention by is below:

Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Corinne Le Quéré, Michael R. Raupach, Josep G. Canadell (both of CSIRO), Gregg Marland et al.

"Efforts to control climate change require the stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This can only be achieved through a drastic reduction of global CO2 emissions. Yet fossil fuel emissions increased by 29% between 2000 and 2008, in conjunction with increased contributions from emerging economies, from the production and international trade of goods and services, and from the use of coal as a fuel source. In contrast, emissions from land-use changes were nearly constant. Between 1959 and 2008, 43% of each year’s CO2 emissions remained in the atmosphere on average; the rest was absorbed by carbon sinks on land and in the oceans. In the past 50 years, the fraction of CO2 emissions that remains in the atmosphere each year has likely increased, from about 40% to 45%, and models suggest that this trend was caused by a decrease in the uptake of CO2 by the carbon sinks in response to climate change and variability. Changes in the CO2 sinks are highly uncertain, but they could have a significant influence on future atmospheric CO2 levels. It is therefore crucial to reduce the uncertainties."

You denialists are a bad flipping joke!
You have the cheek to jump up and down over the leaked email beat-up, while all the pseudo-science your side has managed to conjure up is predicated on lies, corruption and self interest. You're actually not worth responding to, but unfortunately you gather a large and credulous following (this is the trouble with democracy), and so you have to be confronted. But to answer Next's question above, no amount of evidence or logic will move prejudice.
On the dishonesty of those scandalous leaked emails, which so offend you scrupulously honest folk:
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/2/P70SlEqX7oY

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/1/eJFZ88EH6i4