ant, how can I be a climate change denier when I agree human activity is changing the weather and climate?
How?

JF,
The science, measurements and theory, explain why and how the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is directly related to the earths average temperaure. You deny the validity of this science. Therefore, in the general discussions on what is needed to preserve, if possible, a liveable world, your views have no role to play.

Similar discussions with you on other forum topics has found no change in your understanding.

In my view, you are a repetitive denier.

JF,
Oh, and by the way, you have a colleague in Leo Lane.

But, as is exemplified in numerous discussion streams and writings, no two deniers have the same story to tell.

Each has his or her own myth, each being a straw windmill in the winds caused by literally thousands of scientists who do understand, and who want urgent action to reduce FF CO2 to zero ASAP, plus many other ations as well.

They want our planet to remain livable.

Why not try to collect, say, 5 other deniers who believe as you do.

Or better still, join those wanting a sustainable Earth.

Cheers
Tony

JF,
One other matter to contemplate.

In building complex models of the Earth's carbon cycle, a large body of knowledge has been gained on the role of photosynthesis, and the important role it plays in turning CO2 into carbon sugars and oxygen. Ocean green stuff is key to maintsining our supply of oxygen. It has been thourally analysed.

Busy yourself in that research if you wish to understand algae's role in our environment. And then ponder the role of ocean acidification.

But, only if you want to be useful.

Which I doubt.

Tony

And finally,

Bring on the Royal Commission mentioned in the article.

Via questions searching for facts, the lack of knowledge behind the outpourings from snake oil spivs will identify deniers for what they are: supporters of fossil fuel, beholden to truths in the free market, believers in the aromatic values of profit before community wellbeing, believers in capitalism because of its value to the wealthy, and only the wealthy.

To the extent their actions have delayed meaningful action to mitigate / adapt to climate change they are, in my view, criminally negligent.

Tony 153:” they are, in my view, criminally negligent.”. That makes you a failed lawyer, as well as a failed fraud supporter. There is no need to talk baseless drivel to remind us.
We are well aware that you have no science to show any measurable effect by human emissions on climate.
This is the important fact to be brought out by a Royal Commission. The fraud supporters will soon paint themselves into a corner on the carbon dioxide science.
The fraud promoters will not debate, because they always lose, so it will be great to watch them subjected to the rules of evidence, and compelled to answer.They will be subject to penalties when shown to be lying.