Nonsense, do a search. I've never said anything of the sort. The sun has nothing to do with long term, global climate change since the industrial revolution, nothing to go with MMGW. But for many years, the influence of the sun, in terms of short term, and sometimes local [northern hemisphere] temperature change has been well known.

No they don't! Another misquote!!! They dispute that solar activity is responsible for long term, global warming since the industrial revolution. They dispute that the sun is responsible for the warming we associate with man's activity. But don't dispute the sun's capability to influence temperature.

No they don't, but you misquoting me, and misinterpreting simple facts is an issue.

And if that is the "entire problem" with my argument, and I've just demonstrated that the problem doesn't exist, because you are misquoting, then there is no problem with my argument.

Rubbish! thats not your entire point. Your entire point, ever since I have been debating this subject with you, is to deny ouitright that mankind is responsibel. Yiour entire point has been to find anything you can, no matter how plausbole to deny.

I understand SOME of it is, yes, but the implication so far is that ALL of it is, which is wrong.

It is all of it, but even if it wasn’t, it’s still a SHORT TERM phenomenon, nothing to do with LONG TERM global warming.

CO2's only method of raising temperature is by preventing heat escaping, but you just told me the heat is able to escape, then you say in the same sentence that the heat is circulated! Which is it?

Vulcan, this is basic science we learnt at school. Or at least I did. Green house gas prevents a percentage of heat from being re-radiated into space. Some is therefore retained by the atmosphere and some is re-radiated, thus equilibrium is maintained. We remain at a temperature suitable for life. In addition... on this planet, we have something called “weather” and phenomenon like air currents, the jet stream, and ocean currents, and mechanisms like sensible heat flux, latent heat flux, and surface heat flux into oceans. These factors redistribute energy [heat] around the planet.

I did explain this previously if you go back and read my post again.

The IPCC also made huge claims that all the science, and the papers, were all peer reviewed, yet trash like this got through, and past the "thousands of scientists that review the IPCC reports".

To expect perfection, from such a large organisation is totally unreasonable. The IPCC is not perfect, what organisation is, they will make mistakes. There is room for improvement, but the basic message is factual, the Earth is warming, due to our activates. Only a minuscule number of scientists would disagree, the only debate is regarding time frames and the effects we can expect, the degree to which our environment will be compromised.

Fundamental questions are not answered, yet we rely on (mis-)interpretation of data that is questionable at best to draw conclusions about future trends on.

How ironic, a denialist and conspiracy theory fan complaining about misinterpretation. How would you know anyway, within this very thread you have displayed a complete lack of knowledge of even the basics.

We have not proceeded further than "something is going on here", and we have not yet started to understand what is going on.

Utter nonsense! Joseph Fourier understood the green house effect in 1874.

And…

S. Arrhenius was the first person to predict that CO2 released during the burning of fossil fuels would cause global warming. He published his paper in 1896. He was right!!!!

Vulcan, this is getting ridiculous! I have already responded to that, and once again you ignore my response, and make the same claim in the following post. Unbelievable!

That’s WEATHER, not CLIMATE! Weather is unpredictable. Long term climate trend over 30+years is clear to see.

IF, *IF*, the science really existed, they would NOT have to keep running around the world, using the likes of Al Gore to try and convince us with his BS,

Actually, they probably would, when there are individuals like you, who can’t even grasp the basic science behind the green house effect. Stuff you should have learnt at school.

Actually they probably would, when there are individuals like you, who can’t tell the difference between short term weather events and long term climate trends.

Actually they probably would, when there are individuals like you, that can’t grasp that a cold wind from Siberia can chill your nation despite underlying long term trends.

Actually they probably would, when there are individuals like you that ignore phenomena like “global heat balance”.

the scientists would not have to hide data

They released data sets that were previously under lock and key, just as they were asked to. And FOUR separate reviews exonerated them.

US Senate would not have to create legislation to force NASA to release their data,

Post links, so I can respond. The only legislation I know about is in regard to quality control of data.

What we are currently witnessing with climate science is a total breakdown of scientific due process to find the truth. It has been hijacked by environmentalist and governments of the world in order to make money.

No, we are seeing a vast number of talented scientists attempting to do their jobs. Despite denialists, the ignorant on forums, and those connected to right wing organisations, and oil companies, attempting to hack into email accounts to sabotage world climate talks. We are seeing scientists abused, accused of being criminals, accused of being involved in utterly ridiculous conspiracies, and cheating their science to make money.

We are seeing the “total breakdown” of common sense, and a clear demonstration that much of the general population are of limited intellectual capacity.

Is it any wonder that scientist have become defencive?

Don't claim science has answers it doesn't have.

They don’t, unless you have been living on another planet. Despite the enormous amount of evidence collected, they still say 90% probability, and they still tell you they can’t be certain in regard to time frames and extent.

I liken the current MMGW argument to the time of Galileo. He was locked up by the church (of climate change) for his research that stated the earth was not the center of the universe (heresay against the religion of CO2).

A ridiculous analogy! Galileo was up against “religion”. He was fighting a society that had abandoned logic in favour of religious dogma. Science prevailed. Today we have a huge consensus of opinion among scientist that we are responsible for current warming since the industrial revolution.

And only an idiot would claim that the vast majority of those scientists were involved in a criminal conspiracy of unprecedented scale.