Yes, Agromonist,

Or about 0.8 of a degree in the next century, from all causes of global warming, provided that no technological innovations can be developed in that time to cut that 0.8 of a degree back. Like nuclear.

Yeah, pretty scary :)

Joe

Agronomist, you were asked for the science upon which you relied to support the assertion of AGW, specifically, science which shows any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. You have not answered this, so you have nothing upon which to rely in your backing of the AGW fraud, but a baseless assertion, dishonestly made.

Not wise on the OLO Forum, where the dishonest and ignorant are well and truly outnumbered.

As Professor Bob Carter says of assertions based:” upon the supposition that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing dangerous global warming.
Instead, the hard reality is that after twenty years of intensive research effort, and great expenditure, no convincing empirical evidence exists that the human effect on climate (which is undeniable locally) adds up to a measurable global signal.
Rather, it seems that the human global signal is small and lies submerged deeply within the noise and variability of the natural climate system.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/4/a-new-policy-direction-for-climate-change

About time you faced facts, Agronomist, and relinquished your baseless fraud-backing.

Agronomist....Don't worry about them...they've been chattering like monkeys at a banana festival.

Just look at the extinction rate around the planet....and humans have no responsibility to the impact we can see quite well...PS keep it down...we don't want to upset the lay people:)

Kat

Leo Lane, I did once try to take you through the science that is available, but you failed to bother to read the research I linked to or engage with the evidence. This indicated to me that you are not in fact interested in the evidence, rather you are interested in your opinion. If the evidence does not fit your opinion, it has to be fraud.

As this is religion not science, I don’t see any point in continuing to humour your fanaticism.

Once again I note that you prefer to rely on the opinions that suit you rather than the evidence. This time those of Bob Carter who is not a climate scientist and was paid a nice little monthly retainer by the Heartland Institute, but you still try to use his Professorship as authority.

I would suggest that it is you who needs to face facts, Leo Lane, but I know you won’t. Because of course religion trumps facts.

Agronomist, you say “, I did once try to take you through the science that is available”.

When did you do that? My recollection isthat you disappeared from the thread after I asked the question about the science.