Hi NOT NOW SOON,
you've quoting from the denialist hymn book there pal!

"but because the warming scares never panned out as they were predicted"
Not correct! We are right on track according to the best science I can read!

"If the scientists don't agree with the news articles that are reported on global warming, then that's their problem on setting the record straight."
RIIIIIGHHHHHT, so it's the climate scientist's problem that the mass media got carried away and over sensationalised the very few papers that predicted an ice age? It's the climate scientist's problem that the same media didn't blast the headlines when just a FEW years later when those SAME scientists withdrew their papers and said they had got the math wrong?

"Every climate model I've seen has a dramatic spike in temperatures after a few years."
RUBBISH! Justify your opinion here. Internet troll assertions are not fact.

"We are a few degrees warmer some years, not a exponential 15-30 degrees hotter each year."
Seriously, what the hell are you babbling about here mate? The IPCC is worried to death about 1.5 degrees of warming, and that's the more recent scenarios to try and save Pacific Nations. 2 degrees used to be their model. This short piece from Bill McKibben's EXCELLENT documentary "Do the Math" shows us how urgent the 2 degrees scenario.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KtGg-Lvxso&feature=emb_logo

Where the hell did you come up with 15 to 30 degrees? 4 degrees has been modelled as the breaking point of civilisation, 6 degrees hell on earth.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWoiBpfvdx0&feature=emb_logo

30 degrees would probably be a super-extinction event that would end all higher life on earth! I'm not even sure cockroaches would survive, maybe bacteria and extremophiles. What the hell have you been reading if you think 30 degrees is what climate science is modelling SHOULD have happened, because it's SCI-FI not science!

Hi again NOT NOW SOON,

Ah, Roy Spencer and Watts. Now it all makes sense.

Roy is a rare case: an actual climate scientist but in the 3% of those who disagree. It seems to be his association with the hard-right Christian church that is influencing him. His papers are reviewed by his peers here.
http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-spencer

Watts isn't even qualified to comment. He's not even in the 3%!
"Anthony Watts studied Electrical Engineering and Meteorology at Purdue University, but according to correspondence between Purdue University and SourceWatch, he did not graduate. [1], [2]"
http://www.desmogblog.com/anthony-watts

Henderson is an economist and mathematician, not even in the 3%!
http://www.desmogblog.com/david-r-henderson

Now here's the deal. You've bagged out the computer models. EXXON MOBILE read the science and SAID IN SECRET MEMOS that their product would cook the planet,
Also, Richard Muller is here 3 minutes in, a former climate sceptic that ran his own test models and came around to seeing CO2 as the only MAIN driver of today's climate. Not natural forcing, not the sun, not population growth, but fossil fuel CO2!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=ox5hbkg34Ow&feature=emb_logo

Max,

I thought that you thought that every little bit helped?

It's not just Australia, the mania for fireworks extends right around the globe and banning the Annual Pollution Fest would send a message that we are serious.

Is Mise,
grow up. When you are ready to discuss something like an adult, I'm all ears.

We continue to put our case and get no closer to the true answer
But as yet another international meeting takes place, and warns the world, we are getting closer to a result
It has been truly stunning, watching how the case for no climate change and no man made climate change, has grown
Yet just as *at first* so very many fell for the anti change scam, time, and the climate itself, has brought about a swing in those numbers
We will see the day, many of today's deniers will claim they always believed in man made climate change and that will be soon

Dear Max Green,

What do you think about my concern that the hole in the ozone layer over Antartica is now a greater priority than AGW given that it is no longer closing and starting to open up again like it was in the 1980s before we implemented the Montreal Protocol, all because China wants to make billions of dollars manufacturing CFCs?

I suppose the usual suspects of the AGW denialists will come out in denial of the danger of the hole in the ozone layer. Keep in mind they are typically the pro-China bunch who are driven by greed and self-interest.