“I stopped reading your posts about two years ago when I realized they were all the same post. “An idiotic comment even for a fraud promoter like Lucercrase.
On this thread I said, above:” There are 13 comments of which 10 point out the invalidity of her assertions.
Of the three which support her, one relies on a fairy tale about a chimpanzee which is completely irrelevant, one makes a baseless attack on another comment, and the third shows his ignorance by his reference to the hopeless Naomi Klein as a justification for Lyn’s baseless, unscientific nonsense.”
Lucercrase thinks that is the same as I posted two years ago. The only way my posts are the same is that they each show the invalidity of the climate fraud and are scientifically correct, so at least crase has noticed that.
He signed his last post “Tink”, wich no doubt replicates the tiny clatter of his disjointed mind

Greener Grarss says: “ so many denialist comments on your article”
There are no “denialist” comments, Grass.There is no science to “deny”.
There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate. If you are able to refer us to any such science then please do so. Otherwise, please desist from your scurrilous, baseless comments.

Leo, with what level of precision and confidence do we have to be able to measure something before you consider it to be "measurable"?

Do you have any relevant questions, Aiden?
The human effect on climate is not measurable because it is trivial. If it is not measurable, it is not scientifically recognised,, other than invalidly by fraud promoters.
Any more pointless questions, Aiden?

Leo, there is no evidence that the human effect on climate is trivial.
But there is overwhelming evidence that the human effect on climate is far from trivial:

We know that CO2 is a grednhouse gas.
We know that human activity has raised the level of CO2 in the atmosphere by about 30%.
We know about the positive feedback mechanism of a warmer atmosphere holding more water vapour (a more potent greenhouse gas), amplifying the warming effect of other greenhouse gases.
And we know that there is significant global warming, with last year being the warmest year on record.

So human activity is having the expected effect, and there's no credible alternative explanation for this effect.

So my pointless questions are:
Why do you ignore the facts?
Why do you accuse everyone who doesn't ignore the facts of being a fraud promoter?

Aiden, here are some facts and science set out by a scientist that you appear to have ignored:
“Robert Carter, a specialist in paleo-environmental and paleo-climatic topics and author of the book, “Climate: the Counter Consensus,” shows how this hypothesis of dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) fails. Below are some excerpts from a long post titled “Global Warming: Anthropogenic or Not?” See full post here.
Many different lines of evidence can be used to test the Dangerous Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis (DAGW). Here are five pieces of evidence, all of which are based upon real world empirical data.
1. Over the last 16 years, global average temperature, as measured by both thermometers and satellite sensors, has displayed no statistically significant warming; over the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by 10%.
Large increases in carbon dioxide have therefore not only failed to produce dangerous warming, but failed to produce any warming at all. Hypothesis fails.
2. During the 20th century, a global warming of between 0.4̊C and 0.7̊C occurred, at a maximum rate, in the early decades of the century, of about 1.7̊C/century. In comparison, our best regional climate records show that over the last 10,000 years natural climate cycling has resulted in temperature highs up to at least 1̊C warmer than today, at rates of warming up to 2.5̊C/century.
In other words, both the rate and magnitude of 20th century warming falls well within the envelope of natural climate change. Hypothesis fails, twice.
(continued)