@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout yeah.....it's the bloody children's fault.
A small kernel of truth but taken (purposefully I imagine) out of context and then written as the gospel truth.......snore 😴😴😴😴

@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout Magnificent

@HowardP what's magnificent about that post?

@gol979 It is magnificent in the sense that it encapsulates their naiveté, their hypocrisy, their moronic failure to understand the immense variables in a non-linear chaotic climatic system that any physicist can enumerate till your brain wants to boil out of your head! (If anyone claiming to be a "climate scientist" suggests that CO2 plus water vapour are the principle driver of climatic change, then they are charlatans, pure and simple.) Additionally, having followed this debate since it was called "global warming" and not the catch-all "climate change" the one thing that jumps out is that EVERY forecast of change or effect that can be unequivocally attributed to anthropogenic cause has never eventuated. Not a single one. Even the IPCC Scientific papers admit that (The political document is different, for obvious political reasons. )

So the comment is truly succinct and magnificent.

@HowardP so you don't believe that human accelerated climate change is real. Cool, but I completely disagree.

Why would the big oil companies disseminate propaganda saying, well, exactly what you're saying (in a very erudite way, I must say) and have since admitted this very thing?

@IstillmissEP I'm sure you could. Just a little truth would make that diatribe "better"

@gol979 he said from his electronic device.. you got that thing plugged into a wind turbine sir?

@TheOneyouwerewarnedabout oh yeah......I forgot how corporations and government are providing that renewable energy infrastructure. I suppose that's the children and immigrants too?

@gol979 Your see - straight away you fall into the moronic trap of "belief" rather than fact. I have always tried to live in a world where fact trumps feelings. FACTS show that the earth entered a mini ice-age around 1600, and only started coming out of a cool period in around 1850-60. Since then, temperatures have progressively risen to the present more equable regime.

No academic suggests other than natural causes for the return to warmer conditions. The cyclical natural variability of climate is totally accepted. My PhD in 1964 - highly regarded - was about the imminent risk of global cooling, and was well-aligned with scientific views at the time. The idea that in 50 years the world would go crazy about "12 years to save the planet from global warming" would have been considered insane. As indeed it is.

Incidentally, I know of no one who would not concede that a fractional increase in atmospheric CO2 (C02 is around 0.04% of the atmosphere - 400 molecules per 1,000,000 molecules) might, in combination with the far more potent "greenhouse gas" water vapour, have a marginal effect on global temperatures. But even the IPCC in it SCIENTIFIC papers admits that this effect cannot be demonstrated scientifically against the natural 'noise' of atmospheric turbulence and variations. To focus on one single physical interaction in an immensely complex four billion year old atmospheric system of massive robustness is a fools errand. But oh boy, does it bring in Government grants.

The point of all this is that ALL the catastrophism is based on highly inadequate computer modelling, and unfalsifiable hypotheses.

I would like to hear just one of the leading alarmists define ONE event or measurement which might occur in a ten or twenty year window that every one would agree represented unqualified evidence of an anthropogenic effect on global climate. And that if the event did NOT occur, it would show the CO2 theory of catastrophic global warming was a crock.

That is what real science is about - putting forward a hypothesis and BEGGING other scientists to disprove it. If they cannot, only then does it become a valid theory.

No climate alarmist has ever done that.

@HowardP fog of verbiage. If you (generic you) cannot define what's going to happen definitively then I will go with 99% of what climate scientists are predicting

Each time you post a comment, you display your own lack of critical thought and general ignorance. It's sad when facts are rebutted as verbiage! And you hoist yourself on your own petard: it is not up to me to define what outcome climate alarmist would accept as disproof of their theories. In science, it is those that are proposing a hypothesis who must define outcomes which prove or nullify their hypothesis. All climate academics do is set tipping points ten years in advance, and when those criteria are not met, simply move them another ten years in the future. That is not science: it is alchemy. Who forecast an 18 year pause in any statistical valid warming?

Incidentally, the "academic" paper from which the 97% (not 99%) was drawn from was verging on academic fraud. All it actually showed was that 97% of the climate-oriented papers they reviewed (i.e. merely a meta study) showed what every sane person accepts - that humans have an effect on climate. It did not in any way assess if they felt this was a good thing or a bad thing or a totally irrelevant thing. But the paper was presented as proof that 97% of climate scientists agreed with catastrophism. Upon peer review, it was found that a significant portion of the papers they reviewed actually discounted anthropogenic climate change as in any way a problem. It was, in a good scientific word, a crock.

Sorry to have confused you with facts. Now go back to your comfortable belief without proof ignorance.

@HowardP fair enough. You're obviously very well educated in this field but I will not bow down to your, I imagine, quite lucrative line........your standing shoulder to shoulder with the worst people and constructs/infrastructure but I understand why you get so angry to have your "facts" challenged.

Keep on pedalling dude 👍