CO2 and other greenhouse gases, are better at holding heat than oxygen and nitrogen because carbon dioxide gas molecules have more parts than oxygen and nitrogen gas molecules do.

CO2 absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’

Eunice Foote demonstrated the heat-trapping properties of carbon dioxide at a scientific conference in 1856.

Meanwhile other greenhouse gases are far worse than CO2.
Methane has a 100-year global warming potential 28-34 times that of CO2. Measured over a 20-year period, that ratio grows to 84-86 times. About 60% of global methane emissions are due to human activities. However the melting permafrost in Siberia is releasing vast additional amounts of methane as decaying matter defrosts.

Roberts' misleading CSIRO argument is that "none of the events have been unprecedented". In other words he says that there have been other equally hot or cold days and floods in the past. The difference is that they are increasing in frequency and intensity, as was predicted to happen at this time some decades ago. The CSIRO is reluctant to respond to him further, not because he's correct but because they consider addressing his constant denials are a waste of their time.

His other favourite buzzword is "empirical evidence" but there is no empirical evidence that gravity exists but it's pretty self-evident that it's real.

Meanwhile I'm waiting for the first scientist whistleblower to come out and claim he/she was bribed to falsify test results - just like those who allegedly faked the moon landing. Surely there must have been one during the last 50 years.

In the end, what's more likely? What the science has been saying plus the growing evidence of predicted change or the likelihood of a sinister well-organised global conspiracy decades in the making by unknown people?

If you keep doubling the atmospheric CO2 you will get to Venus a bit after 18 iterations, but I don't see that happening any time soon. I used to be quite concerned about global warming, but the idiocy of the reasoning and the politics put me right off. Rabidly anti-nuclear, despite the "emergency" threatening civilisation itself. Also rabidly against any sort of geoengineering to the extent that real world testing is banned because "we don't know what it might do.", and faith in long range forecasts when my own experience is that a correct five year forecast is a very lucky guess.

The UK's economy has been severely damaged by it's pursuit of renewable/low carbon energy. The climate catastrophists would see Australia go the same way with their erratic energy lunacy.

Fester

All true.

Another bloke who needs to start providing evidence is Climate and Energy Minister Bowen, whose "blustering rhetoric" has become quite bizarre.

In 'Show show us the evidence, Minister', Andrew L Urban refers to Bowen's maniacal comments as "overheated" and "under-informed".

Bowen's outbursts on matters to do with his portfolio are "loud and derisory" and they invite ridicule; as are TV ads of him smirking as he drives off in a Tesla, or holds onto a recharge 'plug' like you do a petrol nozzle.

CSIRO says increased CO2 is Greening the Planet.
http://www.csiro.au/en/news/news-releases/2013/deserts-greening-from-rising-co2

This wasn't the original article I had, I did once have an earlier article, but maybe they updated the website, and this article superseded it.

- So CO2 certainly does affect the climate, it's helping to green the planet.

But these droughts have me a little bit worried.
Are human beings, through increased population and agriculture sucking up all the water?
What's going to happen when we start relying on desalination and start drinking the oceans?
Where's that path going to end?

Also I wonder, does sucking up all the oil in the ground impact the planet?
I've always wondered whether or not oil in the ground provides a kind of insulation in between the earths core and the surface temperature, and more importantly whether taking so much out has the potential to affect the climate on the surface of the planet.
I'm not sure what the answer is.

I've always been against the Climate Change narrative, because I think it's a highly politicised issue used to take the power away from sovereign nations and put these issues into the hands of unelected bureaucrats to reside over it, together with planned global taxes, and everyone knows I'm against being ruled by foreigners of any kind.
Also I like to think humans have the ability to adapt and use creative ingenuity to solve problems and be the masters of our own environment.

I've never been against good ideas that are better for the environment, but I won't support willfully cutting ones nose off to spite our faces.
We can see clearly now that shutting down our coal plants was foolish, and resulted in impacting our energy security and the prices for consumers.
I support unity in self-sustainability or self-sufficiency.
I believe this issue largely transcends all the other issues.
- Make Australia 'The Lucky Country' again.

SR,

Again, I didn't ask the question!

But if I did "meaningful" would be greater than 11 degrees centigrade.



____________________________________________________________--
Rache,

writes: "The difference is that they [hot or cold days and floods] are increasing in frequency and intensity. "

Again I'd suggest there is zero evidence for these claims. Just as when Aidan claimed it was warming faster than the past, this is just assertions that the alarmists make without having any way to demonstrate it.

As the various claims of the warmists have been progressively disproven, rather than re-evaluating their claims they simply move on to more unproven (and often unprovable) assertions.

Speaking of disproven claims...."a 10-year survey of a remote reef 1,200 kms south of Hawaii has established beyond any reasonable doubt that coral bleaching is caused by natural sudden changes in local water temperature. The decade-long survey found coral quickly recovers when normal conditions return." This after the reports showing the GBR had largely recovered from previous bleaching events.