We now have climate activists that deny that climate changes !
My goodness what a tangled web !

Bazz,
We're not seeing evidence of that changing the climate.

You seem to have blind faith that some natural cycle will be along to cool the planet shortly. What makes you think it will be more significant than the effect of CO2?

breakdown of the link between sunspot activity and climate was observed in the 20th century, and the amount of solar radiation our planet is receiving is falling slightly yet temperatures are still going up. Shouldn't that tel you something?

And the problem with Plimer is he's the bearer of a false message that a lot of people DO want to hear. 'Tis not his shareholding that makes him a liar but his bogus claims!
We could speculate that his shares are a motivation for the deception, but that's all it is: speculation. Whereas we know for sure that his claims about volcanoes are wrong. Their net contribution to atmospheric CO2 is actually negative. We can also see that he obfuscates and tries to avoid proper scrutiny. The classic example of this occurred during the arranging of a debate between himself and George Monbiot. Monbiot had agreed on condition that Plimer answer ten questions to clarify his position and the source of his claims. Plimer took the view that if he had to answer ten questions it was only fair that Monbiot should to, so he gave Monbiot a set of ten "questions" which were actually complicated tasks akin to a university minor assignment (worth maybe 15% of the final grade). The debate was subsequently called off, and though they have subsequently debated on Lateline without conditions. Plimer's generally regarded as having lost on points, but his dodging scrutiny meant there was no knockout blow.

Is anyone familiar with the work of Professor Nincompoop on climate. For the past 20 years the good professor has been serviving on government grants while he studies climate in such remote locations as The Behamas, Tahiti, Monte Carlo The Greek Isles and The French Riviera. After years of research Pr Nincompoop has concluded that climate is real, and it is all over the world. Through much experimentation in Las Vegas casinos Pr Nincompoop has conclusivly proven there is no relationship between the loss of government money at the Blackjack tables and climate. However the jury is still out on slot machines, the professor will need to conduct many more experiments on that one. Writing from the Swiss Alps, the professor notes climate has no impact on one's taste for caviar and champagne.

Geology is essential to mining. Geology is also concerned with evolutionary history of the earth - which includes CLIMATE. And the geology shows that there is no evidence to indicate that the current change in climate is anything new; and it certainly has very little to do with carbon dioxide, constantly misrepresented as 'carbon' by people who should know better, but who keep talking about "the science".

One of the main offenders of the climate hoax is the BOM, which has trouble with day to day weather forecasts, and has fiddled statistics and even closed down weather stations that disprove the climate lies,

In the last couple of weeks, more tales of new whitening on the GBR have been trotted out. The reef has disappeared COMPLETELY and recovered 60 times in the past. The current concocted stories are a means of getting more subsidies from taxpayers to the tourist industry.

Aiden, are you saying that the Roman Warming, The Medieval Warming,
and the Modern Warming did not happen ?
Saying that because the sun may not have excess warming at this time
is interesting, but that is only one factor in the five variables that
make up the cycle. That is why they are using Fourier Analysis to try
and display all the different cycles separately.
Personally. without being an expert on it, I suspect that there are
not enough data points for the earlier warmings to enable the Fourier
Analysis to produce firm dates for each contributing cycle.
However that does not mean the historical warming did not occur.
It is after all history.

As far as Plimer is concerned, I have no way of arguing against you
on all that, all I can say is "They Would Say That wouldn't They ?".

Aiden on this point; Aiden said;
You seem to have blind faith that some natural cycle will be along to
cool the planet shortly.
What makes you think it will be more significant than the effect of CO2?;

Read Henrik Svenmark and Jiki Kauppenin and the Japanese at Kobe Uni.
I am sure you can find all that.

The amount of co2 and its source is what it is all about.
Kauppenin et al argue that there is an original confusion on the source
of the co2 that raised the temperature.
The point being that man made co2 only contributes to 0.1 deg C.
The rest of the co2 is natural.
The six natural cycles then affect the cloud cover, see Svenmark,
and so the temperature.
That is it in a nutshell.
It is all there, all you have to do is look.