On Sunday, 21 June 2015 16:00:50 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
On Sunday, June 21, 2015 at 3:35:50 PM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Sunday, 21 June 2015 14:06:44 UTC+1, Dawlish wrote:
There's no 'right' and no wrong in science, as I've attested to on here any times.there is no proof, though deniers want there to be. The best you'll get is a consensus amongst scientists. In this case, the consensus is huge, at 99.9% in the latest literature survey. What does that suggest about CO2 being the major cause of global warming.

A good analogy is gravity. The theory of gravity is not proven and never will be. However, if I was stood under a falling piano, I'd be inclined to do my best to get out of the way. A denier, however would be still telling anyone in hearing distance that the theory is a bunch of crap. Right up to the end. 😀



You're analogy of gravity I pure tosh. I'll tell you why you idiot, we can see gravity working on the earth every day , very hour, every second but we have no evidence whatsoever of co2 heating the atmosphere, do we?

Please show this evidence to me and your follower.

99.9% of all published material on the subject points to exactly that evidence. 0.1% supports you and yours.

Your little corner of denial becomes smaller by the day. laughing



Absolute rubbish. Everyday the pause remains and everyday that it unfolds that government and AGW ideological and grant funded bodies have skewed the data, racked up the hyperbole as well as racking up their income; then the public will rapidly as they do now, see the whole thing as am exaggerated scam.

But still St Paul the enlightened one, you have yet to show me or anyone any absolute evidence that C02 in the atmosphere will create a planet to hot to live on. Your feeble plagiarised analogy of gravity is useless. Since the earth formed 4.5 billion years ago, gravity has been an observable demonstrable force regardless of whether their was conscious animal that could or would have noted it until eventually humans did. Human co2 in the atmosphere 150 years versus 4.5 billion of gravitational force and you are other silly buggers are saying that's comparable?

If we look at the ice core data -the actual science.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...t_data.svg.png

You can clearly see that C02 follows temperature by a thousand years -or are you denying those proxies.

So with all that uncertainty about co2 and 1) its effectiveness as a greenhouse gas and 2) how much of our rise in PPM of co2 it purely the oceans recovering from the LIA which was a global event and don't give me that ******** it wasn't as that would be rich coming from an AGW nutter who swears AGW allegiance by a hockey stick that's been used as a proxy for our past climate and yet was based on two trees in Siberia!!!!!!!

Hardly any bona fide scientist would say, that in 4.5 billion years that atmospheric co2 increases and its effect on temperature was as clearly demonstrable as gravity.

I note arctic ice, Antarctic and total ice are very healthy , In fact combined sea ice now, is as high as it was when the satellite started recording it and that has been the period according to NAS and co that AGW had been at its greatest, I'm really looking forward in these coming years as the AGW bandwagon grinds to a halt throwing many of its passengers flat on their faces.