"when it comes to beginnings evolutionist make it up. They dishonestly call it science so it becomes clear that much of what they report as fact with a straight face is nothing short of garbage. Anyone interested in true science knows this."

The value of inexpert and untrained "public opinion" on this complex subject is ably displayed in runner's comment above.

And so it goes.....

cohenite,

""Only one scientifically robust alternative explanation to AGW is required to debunk the overwhelming weight of evidence supporting it. This has not been done (Bob knows this as well)."

It has been done; many times:"

Then he puts up links to OLO, Jo Nova, and the Climate Skeptics Party.

Double Lol!

And so it goes.....

Due diligence is a two way street, and needs to be applied with equal vigor to those who's quite massive fossil fuel funding/vested interests, are running counter claims, or obfuscating the issues.
One has to agree that an ETS as evidenced in Europe is just one big money churning ponzi scheme, which has yet to reduce one gram of carbon; which could conceivably become the most traded most valuable commodity in the world!
We'd be better served by a cap and tax scheme.
The current levels could be the cap, with only that above the cap creating a tax penalty and that below, a credit. Too simple?
The cap could be progressively lowered, and the penalties/credits gradually increased.
Arguably, this is all we need do to moderate behavior?
Oceans absorb both carbon and heat, which is reaching new depths, and ocean acidification has doubled in just the last 16 years.
Yes, our oceans are still essentially alkaline, but the PH balance has moved significantly away from the base!
In just the last thirty years, half the Great Barrier Reef has died. And recently we have seen evidence of cool water bleaching!
And no, changing over to non carbon energy doesn't have to be expensive
Gas fired ceramic cells produce little or no carbon, just free hot water and on demand 24/7 electrical energy, with a world's best energy coefficient of 72%!
Which should mean the world's lowest energy costs.
We also have the option of converting all our biological waste into FREE endlessly sustainable bladder stored biogas, which when scrubbed works as well or better than NG in ceramic fuel cells.
Most families make enough of that to completely power their homes, and even create a salable surplus by adding food scraps.
Making viable electric vehicles is a simple as replacing the engine in hybrids, with a gas powered ceramic fuel cell.
Meaning, electric vehicles could be given virtually unlimited range.
They already outperform conventional vehicles!
A non carbon economy, for those who really do do their due diligence, can be our economic Eldorado!
Rhrosty.

Obviously, some people here don't understand what "scientifically robust" means.

Runner's done it, remember the rule everyone, if runner agrees with you then your arguement becomes invalid automatically.

Back to the article, BoB's going to disapear in a logic bubble... We shouldn't listen to experts becuase "experts" like him tell us not to.

Poirot; every link is to peer reviewed paper or data which has been analysed.

My expertise is dealing with evidence, analysing and evaluating it as it applies to a particular supposition. My interest in applying my skills to AGW occurred during the Gore trial which resulted in a finding that all alleged consequences of AGW were either false or exaggerated in his film, "An Inconvenient Truth".

This finding by a High Court Judge was extraordinary. It means even if AGW theory is right it has no effect on climate. This is why there are NO AGW 'fingerprints'. So, both legally and scientifically AGW has been disproved.

That won't change your mind Poirot because you do not use your mind to support AGW.