So you WERE going to return eventually, Leo Lane. That's a relief. It just goes to show how long cherry-picking data takes, eh. I admire your resolve.

It's funny you should finally respond now because we had my brother-in-law and his partner over for dinner tonight and he's an atmospheric physicist (he's gay too, as if there had to be any more coincidences). I showed him your question and he had a bit of a chuckle because of how it is deceitfully framed, according to him. Basically he said that your expectation of a method of measuring the human effect on climate was probably going to be (what I would refer to as) the Goal Post Shifting fallacy. Your expectation is effectively like a creationist expecting that someone be able to witness one species evolve into another.

He said that, technically, you’re right - there is no way to *accurately* measure the human effect on climate change - but went on to point out how we can know that humans are affecting it due to the fact that the last time this much much CO2 entered the atmosphere this quickly, the earth was a lot more volatile with a lot of volcanic activity.

Deforestation and overfishing are also contributing through the negating factor that trees and ocean life and would normally have on the levels of CO2 being pumped into the atmosphere. He went on for ages with a whole lot of stuff that I can’t articulate or remember but it just goes to show how unrealistic it is that some guy, who claims that heterosexual-only marriage is axiomatic, is actually going to be able to expose some alleged grand “scam”.

He also mentioned that denialists are right when they say that scientists predict that we’re supposed to be entering a cooling period - in their usual attempt to make it appear as though there is a lack of consensus - but he pointed out that they neglect to mention that that only makes what is happening now even more profound than what we’re observing.

Continued…

...Continued

Here’s what an actual sceptic has to say about denialism in general:

“The denial of established scientific conclusions is the flip side of pseudoscience – rather than establishing a dubious belief, it seeks to knock down a legitimate theory. The basic strategy is often referred to as FUD – fear, uncertainty, doubt. Another common term is manufactroversy, a fake or manufactured popular controversy where there is no real scientific controversy.

Denialism of often politically or otherwise ideologically motivated. The primary cognitive process involved seems to be motivated reasoning. The specific tactics include magnifying any doubt or uncertainty about the relevant facts and science. Part of this is to deny that there is a consensus of scientific opinion, or even that a consensus can exist in science (or is relevant). Disputes among scientists about details are used to argue that more fundamental conclusions are in doubt.

Continued…

...Continued

Common topics in this category include the antivaccine movement, opposition to GMO, excessive doubt regarding global warming, and evolution denial (creationism). There are countless less-widespread examples, however, including HIV denial, holocaust denial, germ theory denial, and many others.
This category can alternately be described as ideology trumping science through motivated reasoning. This does not necessarily have to involve denying clearly established science, but can be broadened to include any situation in which a scientific position is taken for ideological reasons. There are many scientific questions that have strong political implications. For example, is sexual orientation more biological or personal choice, is recycling effective, is circumcision a beneficial medical procedure, are gun laws effective in reducing violent crime, and does abortion cause harm to the pregnant woman. These are all questions that can at least be addressed scientifically, and yet people tend to form opinions on the facts that are in line with their political views.”

Anyway, do you have any to say about the actual topic, or were my suspicions about your desire to divert to a topic that you think you're more competent actually right?

The boys ‘n’ I went on a four-wheel-drive campin’ trip the other week. Damo came along with us this time. The first mornin’ was as cold as a flamin’ iceberg, I tell ya. Simmo and Robbo stayed in their tent ‘til ten. Mate, Thommo ‘ad shrinkage like you wouldn’t believe! Said ‘e’s a grower, ‘e did. That’s ‘is excuse anyway. I reckon ‘e’s fullovit. “So much for this global warmin’ stuff”, said Damo. ‘e always was the sharper one. Into books ‘n’ stuff that guy. ‘ad a cousin who wrote for Pent’ouse, ‘e did. Or took pictures for the amature section or sumpin’.

All that nonsense, AJPhillipsand no explanation as to why global warming has stopped, when the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased. I do not have to “deny” your science. It has been proven not to work.
The point of the real science is that the human effect is trivial and not measurable. How does your brother-in-law work out that my question is “deceitful”? Ask him if it is as deceitful as falsely representing that the links you give are to the science showing a measurable effect 0f human emissions on climate?
What is this supposed to mean:” we can know that humans are affecting it due to the fact that the last time this much much CO2 entered the atmosphere this quickly, the earth was a lot more volatile with a lot of volcanic activity.”.I think it means that he has no idea, but would like to sound as if he does, by talking nonsense. Much like you in the last para of your post. You talk gibberish there because you are embarrassed at what a fool you have made of yourself
I do not expect that science will work out a way to measure the trivial effect of human emissions on climate. They would be more likely to be able to find a cure for homosexuality.. If it is not measurable it is not scientifically noticed, so the science is that human emissions have no effect on climate.

Actually, Leo Lane, you didn't even ask about this...

<<...no explanation as to why global warming has stopped, when the CO2 in the atmosphere has increased.>>

But funnily enough, I had already unwittingly answered it. How's that for the predictability of denialist arguments, eh?

You guys are such a sad bunch. The IQ of Simmo, Robbo, Thommo and Damo, I reckon. But pointing this out through those characters is the whole reason for their existence, after all. I think they're really starting to take on a life of their own, if you ask me. I need to build more on Robbo though. We don't really know much about him other than the fact that he's a four-wheel-driver who doesn't know who the IPCC are but denies AGW anyway (probably through fear of change). He was inspired by the race car driver Kevin Bartlett.

Now do you have anything regarding your claim that heterosexual-only marriage is axiomatic? I keep trying to drag you back to that (you know, the actual topic of this entire discussion) but you don’t seem to be too interested in discussing it anymore. Why is that?

the event that demonstrates that there is no science to support the claims of the climate fraud, AJPhillips, is the cessation of global warming, so, if you want to assert the threadbare claim, you should at least mention the circumstance which completely disposes of your assertion, without being asked.
Do you want to pretend that you are unaware that there is not a shred of scientific backing for the human caused global warming assertion?

Salby has shown that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is governed by the temperature. The temperature is not governed by the CO2 content of the atmosphere. We know that Salby is right, not only from his scientific proof, but from the vigour with which he has been attacked by the fraud-backers.

As to marriage, millions of people have entered the state of matrimony as a union between a man and a woman.
No statutory redefinition of the word “marriage” will change that, for them, or for people who in the future wish to marry. The statutory redefinition will be, so far as humanly possible, ignored.