@Anthony & Co,

This is where we get to separate the real spokespersons for science, from the political hacks, who masquerade as standard bearers for science.

Anthony would have us believe that --like all AGW believers --he is right up with the latest scientific research !

Then he goes and makes this statement:
<<What about the human activity induced hole in the ozone layer caused by the indiscriminte use of CFCs a couple of decades ago…Bearing in mind that when CFCs were banned the problem diminished and then virtually disappeared>>

The truth is a lot different.

The ozone hole has NOT “virtually disappeared”!

See here: “The Antarctic ozone hole, which yawns wide every Southern Hemisphere spring, reached its annual peak on Sept. 12. It stretched to 10.05 million square miles, the ninth largest ozone hole on record”
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/ozone-2011.html

And now, we have another ozone hole, over the Arctic!

See here: “A hole in the Arctic ozone layer grew at unprecedented levels this year”
http://theconversation.edu.au/arctic-ozone-hole-grew-at-record-speed-in-2011-3660

Now no doubt one of the usual support crew will jump in with a detailed apologia about the whys-and-wherefores of this --but that is hardly the point.

The real point here is that so many of the defenders of AGW (like Anthony) who pretend to speak on behalf science are woefully ignorant of science.

So now we can begin to understand why when Anthony sought to explain his science to his family: “they... well, they just didn't seem to get it”

They were probably a darn side better informed that Anthony

So according to 579, Posted Wednesday, 29 August "It's a bad situation and getting worse. Greenland is gaining pace month by month, the melt has turned into rivers".

So Greenland will again take its name as it was first discovered by explorers as lush tundra.

SPQR in his usual shrill way, i.e. the voice of increasing desperation, splits hairs.
My point was that the OZONE HOLE issue was a perfect example of human activity causing changes to climate in response to sonofgloin's assertions that human activity doesn't change climate.
It does.
Moreover, SPQR asserts that I claim to be an expert in climate science.
Not so, SPQR! I don't have to, because I rely on.... wait for it... here it comes... the combined views of the world's leading climate scientists, the worlds leading universities, NASA, CSIRO, even the opinions of those scientists who set out to disprove AGW, but merely end up confirming our worst fears.
On the other hand, SPQR, who has no science supporting his assertions, (he rarely has anything of substance supporting his assertions), is in fact claiming superior knowledge to those of the above named groups, as evidenced by his, utterly unsupported, claim that they are all wrong, while SPQR, clever little chap that he is, is smarter than them.
As usual SPQR, has it ass backwards.
But I guess he's used to that.
Anthony
http://www.osbervationpoint.com.au

Has the IPCC rerun its temperature projections since the real amounts
of available fossil fuels was published by Uppsala University ?

Unless they have all discussion is redundant.

Redundant, Bazz?
Oh really?
What, there's nobody else in the world entitled or capable of giving a well informed opinion?
Please see the list of people who support the theory of AGW, listed in my previous posts.
Because SOME members of the IPCC used inappropriate language in SOME of their emails, even though subsequent investigations showed that nothing challenged their basic assertions, you are prepared to deny the opinions of virtually all the world's specialists in this area.
Reasonable?
I don't think so.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Yes Anthony, I do say that.
If the whole discussion is based on a projected rise in temperature
caused by burning fossil fuels, then surely unless the projections are
done on real data of the quantity of fossil fuels then the whole
discussion is useless.

What more is there to say ?

I know that it is like swearing in church but there it is !