warmair and Davidk,
I reiterate
What you warmists don't understand is that there are some things humans have no influence over, like the tides, continental drift, earthquakes, volcanos and more. World climate is another, mother nature controls that. AGW is a religion now to a few gullible fools who believe without proof.

I am sure Tim and big Al will let us know if and when AGW is proven and in the meantime we should just carry on.

Shorten is a dill if he thinks he can win an election while advocating a carbon tax.

The wheels have fallen off the global warming machine because of gross exaggeration and corruption of data. Do not expect it to be reserected.

Banjo
What you don’t understand is this, we have altered the composition of the atmosphere as a result the climate will respond in some way. Co2 is like a catalyst while the quantities are small they have a dramatic effect on the ability of the earth to cool quickly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

It is impossible to make any sense of climate change in the past without taking into the effects of greenhouse gases.

http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3057.aspx

Quote
“Shorten is a dill if he thinks he can win an election while advocating a carbon tax.”

The reason the carbon tax issue was able to gain traction was because it allowed the liberals to claim Julia lied. Now Abbott has given the Labour party enough issues to claim the Liberals lied to keep them in business for the next decade. Anyway far too many people have got the rough end of the deal with the last budget. Shorten already has enough wining material to get him across the line. If the liberals persist in pursuing polices which the public perceives as unfair even the drover’s dog could win the next election for labour.

It is so hard warmair to know if any of you people still actually believe this tripe. Many of us did, when we still trusted our academics. Then a few things opened our eyes, we did a bit of reading, & then did a bit of math. That was when we realised it was a con job.

I must admit I find it very hard to believe anyone other than lady kindergarten teachers & their pupils, believe the crap. Oh & arts graduates probably do, but they are so gullible they will believe anything.

So please do stop kidding you believe it. Yes it was a good fraud, & almost got the UN what it wanted, one world government. It really was nasty of the planet to make such fools of you wasn't it. Perhaps it has a sense of humor, or even believes in justice & truth, so couldn't let you get away with it. However, like your mate on the ship of fools, it is time for you to bail out now.

Too many lies, too much data tampering, & too many emails have ruined your little game. It's over, give it a rest, & David, time to start retraining. If you have been working in the field, a name change would probably help your future employment prospects.

Warmair, it is not just that the co2 has increased, the real crux of
the matter is just where on the logarithmic curve the current value of
the co2 lays.
The last graph I saw on this the curve was almost flat.
A doubling of co2 now only makes a small difference in temperature.

For those who are not aware of this I heard it described like so;

Someone expressed it as laying on extra blankets, from one to two has a
greater effect than going from two to three etc etc, eventually putting
on another blanket makes no noticeable difference.
I suspect that is where the real scientific argument lies.

Bazz
Actually the one thing we have is a good handle on is the direct effect of CO2. A doubling of CO2 will increase temperatures by 1 Deg C give or take 0.2 Degs C. The problems arise when we try to estimate the feedbacks, the most obvious is a 1 deg C increase causes a 17% increase in water vapour, but this in turn may cause an increase in cloud cover whose effect we are not able to estimate very accurately.

Numerous approaches have been tried to get a good answer either by doing a straight calculation based on physics to reviewing past climate and its relation to CO2 levels. The most likely result lies around 3 Deg C for a doubling of CO2.

Hasbeen
Tell me do you simply dismiss the greenhouse effect and if so why?