I don't get it. People and their fantasies forever amaze me. (Since the last line of this articl alludes to it) A current example is the marriage of homosexuals presented as normal. It's not, it's the fantasy I talk about.

How about somebody write a book which actually displays wisdom! This bloke has his eyes fixed on the problems accurately enough, but then...but then!

And I just loved the gender bias, in theorising women as solving the problems of the world. They don't start wars ay...oh yes, and Margaret Thatcher? And of course our current American Queen of "tarts" , Hillary Clinton...actually, they'll be less likelihood of wars with Donal Trump, trust me! Uncle Donald, with the whole focus of life between his legs, how could that go wrong?

In order to keep it short, I go along with John Cleese....The world is stuffed, there is no hope for it!

I doubt very much that we are facing our "sternest test". "Well-educated people" are not always practical or free of irrational fears; in fact, it is many of these "well-educated" people who are spreading fear to gain control over us. "Eco-collapse", for instance, lies mainly in the fevered imaginations of junk scientists and professional activists, who can't come to terms with the forces of nature. There is no evidence of "resource scarcity": extremists just don't want resources exploited; and the "poisoned planet" is greatly exaggerated by fear-mongers.

Julian - of your parade of nightmares the one that is the easiest to debunk is food security, as you've got the wrong decade. Food prices did spike a few years back but the peak was in 2011 and prices have since slumped.
http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/foodpricesindex/en/

The Food and Agricultural Organisation is a UN body which keeps a food price index. Go down the page and look at the long term graph. In real terms, that is after adjustment for inflation, food prices are below where they were in the early 1980s.

So much for food security and climate affecting agricultural production. Maybe you want to wind back the doomsaying in that area.

Money isn't everything!

Just try living without it to understand just how wrong that stupid beyond belief, anal retentive statement really is! And given we retain the right to think for ourselves and freedom of speech, and own our individual political beliefs! So also the right to worship, think, hopefully, occasionally and believe as we chose! Even a flat, stone age world, with no left handed people?

If you have a problem with any of that, get down off the hobby horse of endless negativity personified, entirely unhelpful, critical catawaling. And present your evidence based solutions with as much integrity and power of logical persuasion as you can muster!

You can lead a camel with an already full bellyful of water to the oasis, but you can't make him take on an extra life saving five gallons, unless you brick him first!

The dates should be ripe about now and decadently delicious. Mind you, the almost obligatory dust storms are dust awful!
Alan B.

Ah yes Julian, females do many things, except rape their male partners. Sigh, weep. Whatever happened to equality? Sigh, weep.
Alan B.

An introduction to a remarkable book informed by profoundly felt all-inclusive Wisdom, and unbounded Compassion for all beings, both human and non-human, in the humanly created world-situation in the "21st century". Which (unfortunately) confirms the pessimistic scenarios described by Julian in his essay.
http://www.dabase.org/p2anthro.htm
Plus this essay from the same book:
http://www.sacredcamelgardens.com/literature/reality-humanity.php

And this essay on the nature of the power-and-control-seeking mind which has inevitably created this situation - the universal scapegoat drama.
http://www.beezone.com/AdiDa/Aletheon/ontranscendingtheinsubordinatemind.html

An excellent article and an even better book. Julian Cribb says it as it is and as it will be unless the issues outlined are addressed. It is a tough message written by a tough minded individual who has been dealing with and coming to terms with these issues for over 30 years.

I am heartily sick of the gutless, fearful, denial riven troglodyte commentary from the mentally weak nutters who inhabit the pages of OLO commentary. Their remarks have nothing to do with reason and everything to do with bigotry and prejudice, denial, racism and intellectual cowardice.They are ruining OLO as a forum for reasonable and considered discussion. Take your dopey bile elsewhere. Bruce Haigh

Amazing. Bruce Haigh accusing others of "dopey bile"!! Then again, he thinks Julian Cribb's drivel is wonderful, so what should we expect.

Cribb's The Coming Famine was a dirge written some time before 2010. It hasn't happened, of course, but he has learned from the global warmers and his latest scare now pushes out disaster to some time near the end of the 21st Century, which should save him the embarrassment of being proven wrong, since we'll all be dead. What a crock.

Tartan
"gutless, fearful, denial riven troglodyte commentary from the mentally weak nutters who inhabit the pages of OLO commentary".

Great stuff but you didn't mention me just Bruce Haig. You can't leave me out. I'm happy to point to the truth, that Julian's book is just disaster porn (plenty of that in bookstores) full of easily debunkable warnings of calamity. There, do I count as a troglodyte but your lights now?

Under the heading, About the Author, Julian is described as a 'science communicator'.

Given the fanciful assertions he makes in his article, it would be more fitting to describe him as a 'science fiction author'.

The EcoModernist Manifesto was written by the following authors:-

Stewart Brand
Prof Barry Brook
Prof Roger Pielke, Jr.
Prof Ruth Defries
Assoc Prof John Asafu-Adjaye
Mark Lynas
Peter Teague
Robert Stone
Michael Shellenberger
Joyashree Roy
Mark Sagoff
Rachel Pritzker
Pamela Ronald
Martin Lewis
Ted Nordhaus
Christopher Foreman
David Keith
Erle Ellis
Linus Blomqvist

It is an inspiring piece of work. We can do this, and leave a better world for our children through *practical* and *economic* means without appealing to the romantics or Amish in us!
http://www.ecomodernism.org/manifesto-english/

This article serves the useful purpose of informing us what a heap of garbage Julian’s book is.
Otherwise the article is a waste of resources.
Get a labouring job, Julian, you will annoy less people.

Leo's post serves the useful purpose of informing us what a heap of garbage Leon's posts are.
Otherwise the post is a waste of resources.
Get a labouring job, Leo, and stop posting - you will annoy less people.

(You're an internet troll with no useful information in your post. It's just outright attention seeking behaviour. Turn off your computer, go outside, and make some friends. You'll live longer.)

The school dunce’s posts usually demonstrate his lack of science.
This one demonstrates his lack of originality.
His imitation of my post demonstrates his futile striving to emulate my style.
Give it up Max, you have made a big enough fool of yourself.

I'm just glad people like you are (mostly) content to rant your "armchair-expert" garbage out on the internet and have no real power in the real world. This particular article has many excellent suggestions that will help us as a society navigate through the many REAL challenges we face ahead. Sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "There's no place like home" as you tap your ruby slippers together is not only magical thinking, but immature and loses you credibility points. Anything you say is just so much white noise as a result. My last post was no more than swatting at an annoying mosquito, nothing more. If you have nothing an adult might contribute to the discussion, then just buzz off.

Ever since humans became human and could 'imagine' the future we've been predicting our ultimate demise. Pretty much every religion has its end-of-days finale.

Of coarse, when real catastrophes (plague, famine, etc) were ever present threats, our fore-fathers had to look to the Gods for even worse scenarios. Now that we've basically defeated those problems (famine etc) we look to other, though similar reasons to satisfy our need for belief in the end-of-days.

And so we end up with the likes of Cribb who takes every conceivable catastrophe and treats it as though its a certainty unless we mend our evil ways. Mr Cribb would be right at home with Isiah, Daniel and Brian.

But just like every other doomsayer has been disappointed, so will Cribb.

Malthus was the first of the modern 'scientists' to opine that we were going to run out of food and he's been followed by an sad list of disciples (Ehrlich, Club of Rome) and Cribb. In essence their failed scares devolve to one 'insight' ie if population increases geometrically and food production arithmetically, presto...famine. But food production instead has been shown to increase geometrically while population growth currently increases arithmetically and will decline. We now produce more food (and have more food per capita) than ever before . Its amusing that at the very moment man's millenial struggle to defeat hunger is achieved, some continue to see disaster.

We also see the utterly unscientific claim that " Dozens of species are going extinct every day due to human activity." Even if he means 2 dozen that means over 8000 per year. Ask these dills to name even 10 extinctions from the last decade, or any decade, and you'll get silence (if you're lucky). Yet IUCN, which has every reason to gild the lily, can find less than 1000 over the past 5 centuries. Cribb even fawns over the utterly discredited Wilson who's famous 40 million extinctions turned out to be based on a spur of the moment guess.

Things might not be prefect in 2016 but its the best mankind has ever had it.

Mhaze,
The logical fallacy you have just used is called a Bulverism.

"You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly.

In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulverism

The school dunce has not noticed the absence from the article of the important challenge of dealing with fraud promoters like Max Green, whose ignorance of science results in his baseless assertion that human emissions have a measurable effect on climate. Remember the mess you were in when you tried to refer us to non-existent science, Max. You said you would go away after that, so your return shows that you are unreliable.
You have informed us what a dunce thinks of an article full of misinformation, which will be helpful to anyone who wants to be a dunce.

I might have misspoken, and overstated my level of concern in the last post. Not about things environmental, but about the misleading nature of Leo’s and Mhaze’s posts. Leo’s posts are so bad that you can hear the tinfoil hat rustling on his head. I don’t actually need to refute Leo — but rather will just stand back and let him foam at the mouth and utterly discredit his kind by the sheer madness and discourtesy of his behaviour. Go for it Leo!

But Mhaze,
you know that global warming is based on the laws of physics and chemistry, not religion, don’t you? Exctinctions are also a real threat, especially with what we know about how apex predators can effect a whole ecology, just like the famous Yellowstone wolves! EG: How many tigers have already gone extinct?
http://www.tigers.org.za/extinct-tiger-subspecies.html

What animals and amphibians and insects *have* gone extinct last century?

Here’s a few.
* Arabian ostrich
Arizona jaguar
Bali tiger
Barbary lion
Caribbean monk seal
Caspian tiger
Culebra Island parrot
Falkland Island fox
Grévy's zebra
Heath hen
Ivory-billed woodpecker
Japanese wolf
Red owl
Palestinian painted frog
Paradise parrot
Passenger pigeon
Saint Helena giant earwig
Tasmanian wolf
Kona giant looper moth
Pink-headed duck
Dawson's caribou
New Zealand grayling
Bulldog rat
Wake Island rail
Guam flying fox
Syrian onager
Round Island boa
Schomburgk's deer
Newfoundland white wolf
Mexican silver grizzly
Florida black wolf
Cape Verde skink
Kamchatkan bear
California grizzly
Barbados raccoon
Portuguese ibex
Gastric brooding frog
Rufus gazelle
Labrador duck
Cape red hartebeest
June sucker
Greenland reindeer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Animals_of_the_20th_Century

But of course, there’s nothing to worry about… because… ancient religions... or something. Are you beginning to see the difference between a statement of scientific fact, and the character-assassinations you present as ‘arguments’? Data. Trends. Extrapolate. Precaution. Plan. Prevent! Respect science please, it’s not hard.

"Ah yes Julian, females do many things, except rape their male partners. Sigh, weep. Whatever happened to equality? Sigh, weep.
Alan B.

Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 2 November 2016 11:02:11 AM"

Interesting topic that. I've seen some material on "made to penetrate" based on a US CDC survey focussed on sexual assault. "Made to penetrate" was not a subject I'd heard any detail on before this year and apparently not treated as rape under law (which has a big impact on rape counts). Sort of knew it happened but never considered it to be something that would happen much.

A bunch of interesting stuff in the CDC material, and some big questions about the survey in other sources but what really surprises me is how close the numbers are in places given the perceived differences in attitude to sex between the genders. Especially the numbers for the 12 months before taking the survey.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm

Some of the weaknesses in the survey are covered at http://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/

R0bert

The school dunce says:” . Leo’s posts are so bad that you can hear the tinfoil hat rustling on his head—“
This shows his undoubted ignorance, but further than that, it shows stupidity.
Even a school child, like Max, should not be so stupid as to make unhinged statements .
You really are a loser, Max, when you talk such nonsense.

//Over a lifetime we each use 100,000 tonnes of fresh water, 750 tonnes of soil, 720 tonnes of metals, five billion energy units//

5 billion 'energy units'. Energy units? WTF? Would you care to go out on a limb and specify what those units are, Julian? Electron volts? Joules? Calories? British thermal units? Tons of trinitrotoluene? It makes a big difference, you see. The energy equivalent of 5 gigatons of TNT is a good deal more than the 5 billion eV, for example.

//The poisoned planet: Every day, every child on our planet is poisoned by man-made toxins. We, and all life on Earth, are mired in a toxic swamp of 250 billion tonnes of annual chemical emissions from human activity.//

Of course they are. That's why people in the old days used to live so much longer than they do nowa... no, hang on, I've got that arse-about, haven't I? People are living much longer and healthier lives than they ever have previously. So it seems this 'toxic swamp' is growing increasingly less dangerous over time.

Which makes sense, when you think about, because we know a lot more about toxicology and how to protect ourselves. Matchmakers (as is in people who make the sort of matches you light a candle with) don't die of 'Phossy jaw' anymore. Milliners don't die of mercury poisoning. Women don't use mercury or lead compounds as make-up; artists don't use them as pigments. House paint is lead free and so is petrol. Radium is no longer used for glow in the dark watches. And so on.

From where I sit, arguments that the modern urban environment is more toxic than it was back in the good old days, despite all evidence to the contrary, are one step short of the paranoid delusions entertained by some tinfoil-hat wearers that water fluoridation and vaccination are deliberate attempts by the Freemasons to poison us all.

Thanks, Toni, for the analysis of the article, to specify some of the details of Julian’s dishonesty and lies.
His method of attracting attention is quite disgraceful, and some dunces will believe him..

Hi Toni Lavis,
you make some valid points about how we've regulated and prevented harm from older chemicals. That's fine, and something to be celebrated.

But what about the new? What about endocrine disruptor's as just one example?
"Anthropogenic chemicals which can disrupt the hormonal (endocrine) systems of wildlife species are currently a major cause for concern. Reproductive hormone-receptor systems appear to be especially vulnerable. In the past few years, numerous effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals on wildlife have emerged including changes in the sex of riverine fish, reproductive failure in birds and abnormalities in the reproductive organs of alligators and polar bears. Much less is known regarding endocrine disruption in marine invertebrates, the key structural and functional components of marine ecosystems."
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0025326X99001150

While I'm a fan of nuclear power, what about nuclear bombs? What about open air testing of a few decades ago that has left every generation since with a legacy of a certain amount of fallout in their bones? (See the SBS documentary, "Twisting the tail of the dragon").

These are just 2 examples: there are many others, such as the size of the Asian Brown Cloud, the fact that we still burn coal that is 4000 times more dangerous than nuclear, and many others? Focussing on the one toxic storm that passed and ignoring the new oncoming storm that is rushing towards us is like running out in the eye of a cyclone and yelling, "Come on out everyone, the weather's fine!"

The school dunce has no relevant comments on the dishonesty of Julian’s article, so goes off topic, to raise the question of problems experienced by
“ the hormonal (endocrine) systems of wildlife species “
The paper to which he provides the link says” Feeding strategies (herbivores, carnivores, deposit feeders, suspension feeders) in relation to uptake of endocrine disruptors are also discussed.”.
Nothing of any relevance, but what do we expect of the dunce?
He even raises a problem with polar bears. Reminiscent of the climate liar, Al Gore.

Max Green (is that's not a pseudonym then it shows remarkable prescience from his parents) wrote:

"The logical fallacy you have just used is called a Bulverism" and then proceeded to offer no evidence for the claim....ummm.

Cribb asserts there's 8000+ extinctions a year which I think is an outrageous exaggeration. In support MG finds 42 extinctions in the 20th century. 8000 a year is 800,000 a century. 42 compared to 800,000 - only the numerically challenged would think they are similar.

To be clear, the IUCN thinks there's been around 1000 extinctions over the past 500 years. They say and I agree that that is probably an under-estimation so its perhaps in the region of 2- 3000....in 500 years. So 8000 a year is, to say the least, a stretch. But the committed want it to be true and thus, for them its true, data or no data.

One more point on this silly scaremongering thesis.

The author writes: "No wonder resources are becoming scarce...".

We've never run out a resource but the claim is made with abandon.

A resource is only a resource because humans made it so. Oil is just some stuff that fouls land until someone works out how to use it. An arrow is just a stick until someone puts a point on it. So a resource needs to be evaluated based on the human need for it.

If you evaluate our need for or demand for a resource as compared to its supply by checking the price, no resources are becoming scarce. Julian Simon taught that to the world back in the 1980s but it takes some a little longer to learn

Hi Mhaze,
well I’m glad your dropping your ancient religions schtick and are starting to talk numbers for once. Yay for science. But when you can tell me how you think they should estimate the number of animals we destroyed that we didn’t even get to meet and categorise in the first place, then maybe we can discuss estimates. The number of unique insects and bugs and little mammals and things we’ve unknowingly ploughed up for ever expanding farms is ridiculous. How many had nature’s answers to questions we don’t even know how to answer yet? How many unique soil microbes that might have helped cure cancer, terraform Mars, provide the next liquid energy solution, clean up industrial waste sites? How many little critters that performed unique ecological roles and may have led to biomimicry and the next raincoat, wearable organic jumper that never needs washing, whatever?

What would be your methodology? Guess how many species there might be out there, and then divide by the number of unique ecosystems we’ve already ploughed up for farmland? (We now use about HALF the land surface of the earth to feed and clothe ourselves).

“"Scientists were startled in 1980 by the discovery of a tremendous diversity of insects in tropical forests. In one study of just 19 trees in Panama, 80% of the 1,200 beetle species discovered were previously unknown to science... Surprisingly, scientists have a better understanding of how many stars there are in the galaxy than how many species there are on Earth." -  World Resources Institute (WRI).”
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/biodiversity/biodiversity/

So what studies into this DO you respect? And why do I hear a little triumphalism in your tone at losing the critters I mentioned in the last post to you? Aren’t those losses grounds for weeping, not “Ha, only 42!” Forty two of the most majestic animal species, not 42 different micro-fungi in the soil! (Which themselves, as I mentioned, might contain some miraculous industrial purpose).

//But what about the new? What about endocrine disruptor's as just one example?//

I think toxicologists and public health officials probably worry about new ones as well as old ones, and try to protect us from anything known to be very dangerous regardless of when it was discovered.

Of course, they run into the problem that newly discovered compounds do not come with SDS detailing all their toxicological data. Sometimes it takes a while to figure that out, and sometimes people suffer as a result. Thalidomide springs to mind. But given our ever increasing lifespans, it would seem that they are winning the war even if they occasional battle goes against them.

Or maybe they're all in league with the Freemasons too, and dooming us all to have our endocrine system disrupted and sicken and die in this supposed toxic mire. Still, doesn't seem probable, does it?

//While I'm a fan of nuclear power, what about nuclear bombs?//

There's this saying, I don't know if you've heard it...

BAN THE BOMB!

And recycle their innards for power generation. Swords into ploughshares.

//What about open air testing of a few decades ago that has left every generation since with a legacy of a certain amount of fallout in their bones?//

The fallout that contributes about 15 microSieverts of radiation to your annual radiation dose? Yeah, that sure does suck. But not as much as the 350 uSv you get from naturally occurring isotopes like Potassium-40 in your body, which you'd have still got if you lived in the good old days. Or the average 300 uSv you get from what you eat and drink (people who eats lots of Brazil nuts will have a much higher dose, they're quite radioactive). Or the 700 uSv you'd get if you took regular showers using bore water. Or the 260 uSv you'd get from cosmic rays if you lived at sea level; add an extra 0.2 uSv for every meter of altitude above that.

There are more sources of radiation than that, of course. I've left out the dangers of living in a region where's there's lots of granite, the radiation your house emits (wood is better than brick), and the considerable doses received from X-rays, CAT scans etc.

As an Australian, your average annual dose is about 2 mSv, which is a good deal more than the 0.015 mSV received from fallout but somewhat less than the 200 mSv or so it would take to cause you any measurable damage.

Julian Cribb says:” Dozens of species are going extinct every day due to human activity. “
There have been five mass extinctions, the last one about 65 million years ago, and some scientists assert that there is a sixth about to start, or already commenced.
This one is caused by humans, according to some scientists. We could not have caused the previous ones, because we have only been around for 200,000 years., but for a number of spurious reasons, it is asserted that humans have caused this extinction, if it occurs.
The reason is simple enough. The people who assert this have projected their self-loathing on to the human race, and make these ridiculous assertions to give vent to their disgusting feelings

Hi Toni,
I hear you! I'm with you when it comes to the general public over-reacting to radiation. Most people don't even realise banana's are radioactive! There are even places that are naturally more radioactive than Chernobyl and Fukushima, please see my page (written by a lay person for lay people) on this subject: "Chernobyl, Fukushima, Radiation - Oh my!"
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/radiation/

It's just that my understanding is that general background radiation is different to a particle lodged in your lungs or other organs, constantly attacking organs around it as it decays. Natural radiation, or even external artificial radiation: meh. Has to be *high* level to cause sickness. But one little particle of fallout constantly zapping the surrounding tissue? That's not a good thing.

Anyway, it was just one issue in passing. The real ones are the endocrine disruptors that are changing the gender composition of entire eco-systems. We can and *must* do better. Global warming is a thing. We can and *must* do better. Resource depletion is a thing. We really *can* do better with molecular recycling systems like plasma arc burners.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recycle/

Coal kills 3 million people a year worldwide. We can and *must* do better. Coal will run out one day. We can already do better right now with waste eating nukes, and you're absolutely right, the Megatons to Megawatts process powered 10% of America for 20 years. That's the equivalent of the WHOLE of Australia being powered by fissioning old Soviet bomb-grade material, taking 16,000 bombs worth of material off the market! We CAN do better!

But are we? Nope. Our government hardly 'believes in' climate change, let alone taking any strong action.

//It's just that my understanding is that general background radiation is different to a particle lodged in your lungs or other organs, constantly attacking organs around it as it decays.//

Natural background radiation necessarily involves particles lodged all over your body, constantly attacking molecules as they decay.

And 'twas ever thus; long before the Trinity Test.

It works like this:

Humans are animals.

Animals are made of cells.

Cells are made of molecules.

Molecules are made of atoms.

Not all atoms are made equal; some them are radioactive. And that's OK. If they weren't, we wouldn't be made of stardust because there'd be no stardust with which to form the solar disk, and this would be a purely academic discussion for Qfwfq and Q.

There are radioactive atoms all throughout your body.

They decay in different ways.

And at different rates.

I like to imagine that if you could get all the numbers just so, you could become a comic book superhero. But that seems unlikely.

Your grandfather's grandfather had lot of those radioactive particles inside him, and he obviously survived. Whether or not that was to the advantage of the human race is left as an exercise for the reader.

Once again...

Anyway, it was just one issue in passing. The real ones are the endocrine disruptors that are changing the gender composition of entire eco-systems. We can and *must* do better. Global warming is a thing. We can and *must* do better. Resource depletion is a thing. We really *can* do better with molecular recycling systems like plasma arc burners.
https://eclipsenow.wordpress.com/recycle/

Coal kills 3 million people a year worldwide. We can and *must* do better. Coal will run out one day. We can already do better right now with waste eating nukes, and you're absolutely right, the Megatons to Megawatts process powered 10% of America for 20 years. That's the equivalent of the WHOLE of Australia being powered by fissioning old Soviet bomb-grade material, taking 16,000 bombs worth of material off the market! We CAN do better!

But are we? Nope. Our government hardly 'believes in' climate change, let alone taking any strong action.

Max Green says:” Our government hardly 'believes in' climate change, let alone taking any strong action.”
Now that you are aware that there is no scientific basis to assert that there is any measurable human effect on climate, Max,, what action should a government take?

Hi Leo Lane,

On my side:
* 97% of the opinions that matter
* The repeatable, demonstrable laws of physics of CO2
* The mathematics of the Radiative Forcing Equation which measures how much incoming radiation warms the planet
* (This works out to be an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs of heat per second!)
* The demonstrable water vapour feedback with the atmosphere getting wetter
* The oceans getting warmer
* the atmosphere getting hotter as measured by both satellites and tens of thousands of ground stations across the planet,
* the top 3 temperature databases from the top 3 most reputable scientific weather organisations on the planet,
* the seasons changing,
* and the peer-review mechanism of the scientific community.

On your side:
* 3% cantankerous contrarians that mutter about uncertainty or go on about 7 day literal Creationism!
* tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorists that are so right wing they believe in global conspiracy that would have to go back 200 years to when Joseph Fourier discovered the greenhouse effect!
* no explanation as to why the planet is demonstrably warming
* loonies
* attention-starved and attention seeking internet trolls like yourself!

Still no science, Max, to show any measurable human effect on climate, so your assertions are baseless.
Even you must be aware that Cook’s “peer reviewed” paper on 97% of scientists supporting the consensus fraud has been shown to be baseless. There is a difference of opinion as to whether he is a liar or incompetent, but anyone familiar with his deceptively named web-site, “Skeptical Science” knows that he is a liar.
I have posted the science numerous times to show that the CO2 hypothesis of the fraud promoters has failed empirical observation.
No wonder you are the school dunce. You are resistant to learning. Your assertions ignore the science, which is summaised as follows:
“"However, our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails."
Bob Carter http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ZUVPX02KD1UHZQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/08/nrclimate08.xml&page=2
There is no science to show a measurable human effect on climate, is there, Max?

"Even you must be aware that Cook’s “peer reviewed” paper on 97% of scientists supporting the consensus fraud has been shown to be baseless."

The fact that you think it's Cook's shows what a denialist echo-chamber you live in! What a sheltered little world you live in.

The school dunce, typically, failed to give a reference to the” * 97% of the opinions that matter”
In his garbled response he seems to say that he has a different 97% to the failed assertion by Cook.
He has failed twice to give the reference.
Do you have one, Max, or are you lying again?
Most dunces refer to this one:
* 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere"

Dude, there are many others.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#/media/File:Cook_et_al._(2016)_Studies_consensus.jpg

There is not one scientific academy on the planet that questions it. Not one!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

But yes, a survey does not indicate science. Yet the number of qualified *climate* scientists supporting AGW should tell you something. You just don't want to look!

Max the troll. Web addresses that do not relate to the consensus, and a stupid remark about it not being denied by bodies that have not considered it.
You cannot be as stupid as you pretend to be, so what you have posted makes you a troll, as well as a dunce.
http://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/

There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, so you are asserting that there are dishonest climate scientists? Yes, it does tell me something.

Sorry Leo but you forgot to write using English grammar. I'll post my main link again to remind you to read and, um, hopefully (although I don't want to be *too* much of a dreamer)... think.

There is not one scientific academy on the planet that disagrees with the consensus view of Anthropogenic Global Warming. It seems every National Academy of Science agrees! So, are they all dunderheads that can't do science? Are they incapable of accessing data on CO2's radiative forcing as tested by a Fourier Device? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

It's a ridiculous presupposition. It's why I call conspiracy theorists tinfoil hatters.

//But are we? Nope. Our government hardly 'believes in' climate change, let alone taking any strong action.//

Our Parliament, last time I checked, had about 5 members - across both houses - who hold a scientific qualification. Most politicians are Arts/Law graduates, and don't know their quarks from their quasars. We can't really expect them to understand the science.

At the end of the day, it's our fault: we live in a representative democracy, so we get the politicians we vote for. If we collectively decide that we'd rather be ruled by a mob of lawyers than a group with a diverse range of different skills and knowledge, then we have to be prepared to live with the consequences of that decision.

When Max made a fool of himself last year, he departed the thread, he was unable to justify himself in any way, no science, no sense, just baseless ad hom against me. I had shown that he had no science and was a baseless fraud promoter, just as he is now.
He said “ I don't have the time to waste on yet another dime-a-dozen internet troll. I'm unsubscribing from this thread. Goodbye.
Posted by Max Green, Sunday, 26 April 2015 2:20:46 PM”
Max the troll, having the gall to call me a troll because I showed that he has no science to justify his baseless assertions.
orum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17266&page=0#304963

Max, the troll, now says:” It's why I call conspiracy theorists tinfoil hatters.”
No, Max, it is your childish, dishonest reaction to the purveyors of the truth. You call them “conspiracy theorists” show your resentment and dishonesty. All you need do is reference science which shows that there is a measurable human influence on climate. You cannot do so, because there is no such science.
Your dishonesty is the only basis you have for support of the climate lie

A convenient summary of the climate fraud is given by Apollo Astronaut Walter Cunningham:

"If we go back to the warmist hypothesis - not a theory, but, a hypothesis - they've been saying from the very beginning that carbon dioxide levels are abnormally high, that higher levels of carbon dioxide are bad for humans, and they thought warmer temperatures are bad for our world, and they thought we were able to override natural forces to control the earth's temperature. So, as I've looked into those, that's the problem that I've found, because I didn't find any of those to be correct - and, they certainly were not a theory, it was just their guess at what they wanted to see in the data they were looking at."
."
"Don't believe it just because your professor said it. You gotta go take a look at it. Go back and look at the history of temperature and carbon dioxide, and you look at the value of carbon dioxide, and how it's a benefit today."

Astronaut Walter Cunningham in the Apollo era.
Cunningham notes that, while climate alarmists are concerned that the atmosphere currently contains 400 parts per million of CO2, that's only a tenth of the level his spacecraft had to reach before causing concern. In his Apollo craft, an alarm would go off when CO2 reached 4,000 parts per million and, in today's space shuttle, the trigger is 5,000. And, in submarines where crewmen may be on three-month missions, CO2 has to reach 8,000 parts per million before the alarm is activated.
"In one area after another, we find these people overly concerned about, one, the danger they're trying to push on us and, secondly, the claim that we can somehow or other control the earth's temperature by affecting it," Cunningham says.
"I can't say we don't have any impact, at all, but it'd be so miniscule and so tiny, that it wouldn't be worth any effort."
So, ....he calls climate alarmism "the biggest fraud in the field of science":
http://www.cnsnews.com/mrctv-blog/craig-bannister/apollo-astronaut-climate-alarmism-biggest-fraud-field-science

Exxon Mobil pursues Schneiderman for his actions in bad faith, pursuing the company at the instigation of climate fraud supporters.
“ On the heels of last week’s federal court order subjecting Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and parties involved in the #ExxonKnew campaign to judicial scrutiny, yesterday ExxonMobil asked a federal court to join the Green 20 ringleader – New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman – as a defendant in the case and invalidate the subpoena he issued in 2015.
Explaining the basis for the discovery order, Bloomberg reported today that “The timing of Exxon’s filing [against Schneiderman] wasn’t happenstance. Last week, U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade in Fort Worth said in writing that he was concerned that Healey may have engaged in a ‘bad faith’ pursuit” of the company given her biased and prejudicial public rhetoric on the matter. As a result, Schneiderman, Healey, and other participants in the #ExxonKnew cabal will be compelled to produce internal emails and other documents and, potentially, sit for depositions.

In other words, the tables have turned, and the “investigators” themselves will now be investigated about what they knew, said and did in the run-up to launching their campaign.

Much like the successful filing against Healey, ExxonMobil’s motion to join Schneiderman in the case lays out compelling evidence that the New York AG was also acting (leading the coalition) in “bad faith,” and that he and Healey“joined together with each other as well as others known and unknown to conduct improper and politically motivated investigations of Exxon Mobil in a coordinated effort to silence and intimidate one side of the public policy debate on how to address climate change.”
https://energyindepth.org/national/schneiderman-on-the-defensive-as-exxonknew-campaign-begins-to-backfire-on-ags/

Hi Leo,
you're trying to distract the crowd with endless links to other topics. But we are still discussing the 97% issue, and your personal ignorance of OTHER studies that support this remains a live issue.

Because you haven't said anything intelligible or comprehensible (in English) about it, I'll put it up again.

Dude, there are many other studies into the 97% factor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#/media/File:Cook_et_al._(2016)_Studies_consensus.jpg

The 'source' you linked to on 97 studies against 97% was a who's who of anti-science gits like the Heartland institute. Try harder. With real, not imaginary, stuff.

Also, there is not one scientific academy on the planet that disagrees with the consensus view of Anthropogenic Global Warming. It seems every National Academy of Science agrees! So, are they all dunderheads that can't do science? Are they incapable of accessing data on CO2's radiative forcing as tested by a Fourier Device?

Let's see, what do all the National Academies of Science say?

"Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

That it's all a conspiracy is just plain ridiculous and childish, the domain of sad tinfoil hatters.

So while you foam at the mouth and change the topic, let's just agree that 97% of people actually qualified to comment on it agree that climate science is real, and that the 3% is made up of known cantankerous contrarians without any real counter-theory, and ... gee, let's see... a known creationist? Wow. Some scientific pedigree you keep there pal!

Max, the troll, says:” it's all a conspiracy is just plain ridiculous and childish, the domain of sad tinfoil hatters.”
Yes Max, it is another of your more ridiculous assertions. It is your assertion, not mine. I have never said anything about a conspiracy, it was,, I agree, a sad tinfoil hatter, being yourself.
So what does a fraud supporter and troll do when he has no valid response to a factual statement?
Standard fraud-backers procedure is to lie about theperson making the statement. There it is, Max’s lie:” was a who's who of anti-science gits like the Heartland institute.”It was a faithful reporting of the invalidity of Max’s material, which was the standard fraud backer’s lie about the mythical 97% of climate scientists.
There are petitions signed by scientists against the baseless misrepresentations of climatescience:
“, it has by far the most signatures—more than 31,000 (more than 9,000 with a Ph.D.). It was most recently published in 2009, and most signers were added or reaffirmed since 2007. The petition states that "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of . . . carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."
We could go on, but the larger point is plain. There is no basis for the claim that 97% of scientists believe that man-made climate change is a dangerous problem.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Max repeats baseless lies because he is a fraud supporter and a troll. He has no science to support his assertions, so makes ridiculous untrue statements to divert from the topic, snd distract fro his complete lack of merit. In particular he can refer to no science which shows any measurable human effect on climate.

Science is about evidence, not consensus.

Thankfully, Donald Trump is not in consensus with Hillary Clinton (or Barack Obama) on climate change.

Trump has written: “There has been a big push to develop alternative forms of energy—so-called green energy—from renewable sources. That's a big mistake. To begin with, the whole push for renewable energy is being driven by the wrong motivation, the mistaken belief that global climate change is being caused by carbon emissions. If you don't buy that—and I don't—then what we have is really just an expensive way of making the tree-huggers feel good about themselves.”

(http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264605/where-clinton-and-trump-stand-–-every-major-issue-john-perazzo )

Neither will Trump be in accord with the Paris climate accord. So, interesting times ahead.

"Science is about evidence, not consensus."

Agreed! One consistent good fact explained in a successful theory that overturns AGW would do the job. Unfortunately, the peer-reviewed scientists I read can't see any! That's why the 30,000 people in your sad little "Oregon Petition" include such illustrious signatories as Donald Duck and Luke Skywalker. Also, what does the opinion of a podiatrist (for one example) have to do with climate change? Yeah, those 30,000 signatures REALLY count! ;-)

So back to evidence? You need to try AGAIN! As I said before...

Dude, there are many other studies into the 97% factor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#/media/File:Cook_et_al._(2016)_Studies_consensus.jpg

The 'source' you linked to on 97 studies against 97% was a who's who of anti-science gits like the Heartland institute. Try harder. With real, not imaginary, stuff.

Also, there is not one scientific academy on the planet that disagrees with the consensus view of Anthropogenic Global Warming. It seems every National Academy of Science agrees! So, are they all dunderheads that can't do science? Are they incapable of accessing data on CO2's radiative forcing as tested by a Fourier Device?

Let's see, what do all the National Academies of Science say?

"Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

No one has produced empirical evidence to substantiate the hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause dangerous global warming.

"No one has produced empirical evidence to substantiate the hypothesis that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions cause dangerous global warming."

That Raycom is because there are not dozens of worlds available on which to do the appropriate experiment.

As long ago as 1859 John Tyndall demonstrated that increasing the carbon dioxide concentration in air could trap heat.

This is what a troll and a dunce puts up as science, from that well known scientific authority, Wikipedia:” it is extremely likely(meaning 95% probability or higher) that this warming is predominantly caused by humans. It is likely that this mainly arises from increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as from deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels, partially offset by human caused increases in aerosols; natural changes had little effect…”
No science, just a repetition of the baseless assertion by the mendacious IPCC, who being aware that there is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, assert this nonsense. Trolls like Max support the fraud.
How the National Academies came to support the baseless assertion is not clear, as the troll does not give the source of his assertion.
In the past,when previously reputable entities like the Royal Society, and the American Physical Society made statements supporting the climate lies, their own membership forced withdrawal of the statements because they had no scientific backing. It is irrelevant what statements are made, unless there is science to support the statements, otherwise it is a matter of ascertaining how the making of the baseless statements was procured.We need a Royal Commission or a U.S. Senate enquiry.
So come up with some science, Max, and stop being a disingenuous troll, relying on baseless unscientific assertions.

There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, is there, troll?

Hi Leo,
changingthe subject again?

Just to remind you, right now, in this particular exchange, we're discussing how many actual, qualified climate scientists who have a clue what they're talking about actually agree with AGW.
You're trying to change the topic because you're uncomfortable in this terrain.

Facts you have NOT addressed.

1. There are a NUMBER of studies supporting 97% support from legitimate scientists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#/media/File:Cook_et_al._(2016)_Studies_consensus.jpg

2. NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF SCIENCE
"Since 2001, 34 national science academies, three regional academies, and both the international InterAcademy Council and International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences have made formal declarations confirming human induced global warming and urging nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The 34 national science academy statements include 33 who have signed joint science academy statements and one individual declaration by the Polish Academy of Sciences in 2007."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Max says:” You're trying to change the topic “
No, troll, the topic is your lack of science to support your assertions, which have no basis other than your dishonesty.
Assertions by entities which support lies are irrelevant.
You cannot produce any science to support your assertions.
I have posted science to show the invalidity of your position.
You have posted no science to support your baseless nonsense.
Attempting to change the topic to scientists who support assertions with no scientific basis does not mitigate your dishonesty.

You are a meritless troll.

Its all very well to be claiming a consensus. But what is the consensus and what do 97% of scientists agree with?

Well it comes down to agreeing with two propositions:
1. That we've warmed over the past 100-150 yrs
2. That a 'significant' portion of that warming was due to man's actions.

OK. I accept that north of 90%of climate scientists would agree with those propositions. I certainly would.

But so what?

Is there a consensus that the warming is bad, dangerous or catastrophic? If so where's the evidence for that?

In the article in question its asserted that man's actions "will raise the Earth's temperature by +5-10 degrees centigrade." Is there a consensus around those sort of numbers (or anything approaching them) and if so where's the evidence?

Indeed is there a consensus that we'll even get to the purported dangerous 2c warming and if so where's the evidence?

Is there a consensus that 2c is indeed dangerous?

and so on.

The 97% number is a marketing exercise, not a scientific one. Its used by those a certain ilk to go from a couple of motherhood statements that all agree with, to assertions that everyone therefore agrees we have to have CO2 taxes and renewable subsidies. But there is no consensus about that and certainly no evidence that a consensus at any level exists about what ought to be done in response to the current 1c per century warming.

On my side:
1. 97% OF THE OPINIONS THAT MATTER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#/media/File:Cook_et_al._(2016)_Studies_consensus.jpg

Every National Academy of Science and credible private scientific institution on the planet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

2. THE DEMONSTRABLE LAWS OF PHYSICS OF CO2, see:-
* Mythbusters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
* The candle demonstration at 90 seconds in. Candle demonstration goes for a minute only.
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/

3. THE RADIATIVE FORCING EQUATION which measures how much incoming radiation not only warms the planet, but is trapped from exiting back out to space, which is an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs per second!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

4. THE WORLD’S TOP 4 TEMPERATURE DATABASES

NASA
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01/february_2016_s_shocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/

WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
“Geneva, 21 July 2016 (WMO) _ Global temperatures for the first six months of this year shattered yet more records, and mean that 2016 is on track to be the world’s hottest year on record.”
http://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-climate-breaks-new-records-january-june-2016

THE MET OFFICE
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature

NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

4. DRY LANDS GETTING DRYER, WET AREAS GETTING WETTER
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120521104631.htm
https://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php/en/climate-science-highlights/463-wet-regions-getting-wetter-dry-regions-drier-as-planet-warms

5. THE OCEANS GETTING WARMER, SHRINKING ICE SHEETS, GLACIERS RETREATING, ACIDIC OCEANS, DECREASED SNOW COVER, AND SEA LEVEL RISE.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Other than all that, I’m sure there’s no scientific evidence whatsoever! ;-)

Hi Mhaze,
interesting question, as it shows you've been living in the cave behind the hermit's cave, because even the proverbial hermit knows the answer to these two! He must have been blocking your view of the TV in his cave for the last 10 years.

"Indeed is there a consensus that we'll even get to the purported dangerous 2c warming and if so where's the evidence?

Is there a consensus that 2c is indeed dangerous?"

Fortunately here's a 3 minute summary of the most basic consensus of all: 2 degrees MATTERS!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KtGg-Lvxso

Max,

I'm in an ebullient mood following the US elections so I'm gunna let your childish hermit tirade pass and give it the consideration it deserves ie none.

Again, I'm not disputing that there is a consensus of sorts about the past 100-150 yrs and its causes.

But my point was that there is no evidence for a scientific consensus about the future and what, if anything, to do about it.

Now I get that you, in your childish naivety, think that a YouTube video by Bill McKibben (really!) is the same thing as a scientific consensus. Alas, you'd be wrong.

We know that the 2c figure was plucked out of thin air (so to speak) - Phil Jones confirmed it in emails revealed by FOIA.

But again, where is the evidence that a consensus of scientists think its valid? Where is the evidence that a consensus of scientists think its dangerous? Where is the evidence that a consensus of scientists think we'll get there? Where is the evidence that a consensus of scientists agree about what to do about it? Where is the evidence that a consensus of scientists agree we need to do anything now (repeat, now)?

It get that you are convinced by the Mythbusters team burning candles that its all real and we're all gunna die 40 years from next Tuesday week, and that therefore we need to uproot society to avoid it. But some evidence might be a value, n'est pas?

And there I was thinking I was doing you a favour by at least linking to something entertaining. Maybe the fact that you're a Trump supporter has you on too big a high to comprehend basic presentations? Being a Trump supporter is certainly very revealing of your general state of mind, and shows what is really driving your climate scepticism. Politics.

The real question is *what* do *you* think they were studying at Copenhagen? A horoscope? One of those "Around goes the wheel and out comes the rat!" spinning wheel sideshow raffles that Sarah Palin is so fond of up in Alaska? Gee, that's a hard one. I *wonder* what they were discussing! ;-)

Also, you snuck this in without a reference or any evidence.
"We know that the 2c figure was plucked out of thin air (so to speak) - Phil Jones confirmed it in emails revealed by FOIA."

Are you trolling again? I thought we already discussed your propensity to make assertions without a shred of evidence. Perhaps you didn't like being repeatedly caught out quoting things out of context, and think it's easier just to sneak unfounded assertions into a trite and petty little bit of trolling, instead of actually discussing something like an adult?

It's this simple: put up or shut up.

The troll’s favourite lie is the “97% of scientists”, which I easily showed to be nonsense. His favourite childish slogan is”tinfoil hat”. He has no science to support his nonsense.
A letter from a group of scientists to the UNIPCC covers the nonsense he puts forward as “science”:
”Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea- level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/ wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.
http://www.rense.com/general79/d3m.htm
The letter is signed by 101 scientists.
The troll should be ashamed of himself, for wasting our timeon his puerile attempts to divert us from the fact that hi assertions are all based on dishonesty.
He has no science, do you, Max?

The school dunce and troll par excellence has just 'quoted' something without any alternate hypothesis, showing it to be dogma, even anti-science.

The climate has done wild things in the past, from completely freezing in the "Snowball Earth" event that ended about 600 million years ago to super-greenhouse climates with anoxic oceans and massive dieoffs. ALL of these are within the realms of natural climate shifts, and are far more extreme final states than the warming we've seen in the last 100 years.

But here's where we do a little thinking. Here's where the science begins, and the dogmatism ends. Why? WHY did the earth go into a Snowball phase, and then into various super-greenhouse phases?

Just saying "for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability" completely ignores:-

1. Science's responsibility to analyse WHY events are happening, and what the causes are
2. The possible effects of massive climate shifts

So the piffling little troll just asserts rubbish without actually positing an alternative hypothesis. He also just asserts there is no science, while I have demonstrated the peer-reviewed mechanisms of causation, the demonstrable repeatable physics causing this climate shift AND the negative effects.

Given the lack of evidence in his assertions, I can just assert that he's been sniffing moon rainbows with the unicorns all night, and so can't be held responsible for his trite and trivial, childish little tantrums.

Max wrote: "Also, you snuck this in without a reference or any evidence."

Frankly I'm flabbergasted that you don't know about this. I guess the best way to be Maximum Green is to do Minimum research. If you only read your approved alarmist literature you'll be led done the garden path and lot's of pertinent information will be hidden from you. But if you're just looking for confirmation of your pre-determined views then by all means continue as before.

As to the 2c:

Go here to see what Phil Jones (do you know who he is or do I need to do more spoon-feeding?) said:

http://junkscience.com/2011/11/climategate-2-0-jones-says-2o-limit-plucked-out-of-thin-air/

This was revealed as part of the Climategate 2.0 dump. Jones hasn't denied he sent the email.

As to Copenhagen, I agree there is a POLITICAL consensus that says that the grandkids of our grandkids should try to keep temps to some level. But that wasn't my point.

Here you are running around proudly asserting (for that's all you've got) that the science is on your side. But when I ask for evidence of that, it turns out you've got no science.

So again where is the evidence that a consensus of scientists think its (the 2c limit) valid? Where is the evidence that a consensus of scientists think its dangerous? Where is the evidence that a consensus of scientists think we'll get there? Where is the evidence that a consensus of scientists agree about what to do about it? Where is the evidence that a consensus of scientists agree we need to do anything now (repeat, now)?

Scientific consensus not political consensus. If you can't show a scientific consensus, and we both know you can't, then stop claiming that the science is on you side as to the future temperatures and the future responses.

Max, i really am trying to cut you some slack by not responding to every moronic statement you make, since you're clearly out of your depth. But every now and then I need to give you a clip across the ears to remind you how much you misunderstand.

The troll says I havequoted:” something without any alternate hypothesis, showing it to be dogma, even anti-science.”
While, of course, in dunce form, and not in comprehensible English, it does convey the troll’s utter lack of any grasp of science. Under what mispprehension he labours to produce such a statement I have no idea, but his aim is clear, to divert us from the clear fact that he has no science to support his nonsense which is based purely on his dishonesty. No doubt his stupid statement emanates from his dishonesty. It certainly has no rational basis.
There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, is there, troll?
You persist with dishonest nonsense, which, I suppose, is all that a troll has.

No science at all! Except for

1. 97% OF THE OPINIONS THAT MATTER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#/media/File:Cook_et_al._(2016)_Studies_consensus.jpg

Every National Academy of Science and credible private scientific institution on the planet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

2. THE DEMONSTRABLE LAWS OF PHYSICS OF CO2, see:-
* Mythbusters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
* The candle demonstration at 90 seconds in. Candle demonstration goes for a minute only.
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/

3. THE RADIATIVE FORCING EQUATION which measures how much incoming radiation not only warms the planet, but is trapped from exiting back out to space, which is an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs per second!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

4. THE WORLD’S TOP 4 TEMPERATURE DATABASES

NASA
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01/february_2016_s_shocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/

WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
“Geneva, 21 July 2016 (WMO) _ Global temperatures for the first six months of this year shattered yet more records, and mean that 2016 is on track to be the world’s hottest year on record.”
http://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-climate-breaks-new-records-january-june-2016

THE MET OFFICE
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature

NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

5. DRY LANDS GETTING DRYER, WET AREAS GETTING WETTER
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120521104631.htm
https://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php/en/climate-science-highlights/463-wet-regions-getting-wetter-dry-regions-drier-as-planet-warms

6. THE OCEANS GETTING WARMER, SHRINKING ICE SHEETS, GLACIERS RETREATING, ACIDIC OCEANS, DECREASED SNOW COVER, AND SEA LEVEL RISE.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

But hey, if you think you can disprove the BASIC, DEMONSTRABLE PHYSICS OF COS, go right ahead. Be my guest. And when you've won a noble prize for physics in doing so, I'll even buy you a beer. Until then, you're just another tinfoil hat nutter in an internet vastly populated with echo chambers for the navel-gazing and deluded.

Hi Mhaze,

CAN WE CONTROL CARBON DIOXIDE?

William D. Nordhaus (economist, writing from the best science papers at the time, being June 1975)

Page 23
“As a first approximation, we assume that a doubling of the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is a reasonable standard to impose at the present stage of knowledge. First, according to the estimates of the effect on temperature, these temperature changes would be somewhere between the change observed over the last century and up to perhaps four times this variation.
Although we do not know exactly what the effect is, we are probably not changing the climate more than has been associated with the normal random variations of the last few thousand years.”
http://webarchive.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/PUB/Documents/WP-75-063.pdf

Phil Jones may have a better rule of thumb as our understanding of climate sensitivity has grown a lot in the 42 years since this was written. Maybe our rule of thumb should be what the Arctic ice sheet is doing. Maybe 2 degrees is far too high? But Phil Jones is wrong when he says it appears to have just been pulled out of thin air. Climate is a vast field, and maybe he just was not aware of this quite old paper above. We all have our areas of expertise.

Nordhaus also wrote:

"According to most sources the range of variation between between distinct climatic regimes is on the order of ±5°C, and at present time the global climate is at the high end of this range. If there were global temperatures more than 2° of 3° above the current average temperature, this would take the climate outside of the range of observations which have been made over the last several hundred thousand years."

Max, when you repeat a lie you are lying. Each time you repeat the 97% lie you are lying again

"Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
Just to remind you that the assertions by fraud promoters like yourself, about carbon dioxide, have no validity, here is what a scientist says:” "However, our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements (see graph below) rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails."
Bob Carter http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ZUVPX02KD1UHZQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/08/nrclimate08.xml&page=2
There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
As you have demonstrated on this thread, you have no grasp of the science. Your assertions are not just dishonest, but stupid and ignorant, because of your inability to assimilate science.

Max,

Really! Did you even read the Nordhaus article?

What you were trying to show was that there was a scientific base to the claim that any rise over 2c would be dangerous or catastrophic. What you found was a paper from 1975, by an economist which doesn't mention the rises being dangerous. Sheeesh!!

The paper doesn't say anything close to what you hope it says, which you should have known had you read it. IT doesn't use the words dangerous or catastrophic or any similar words. All its doing is saying that if we want to keep temperatures in the range of the past 10000 yrs then this is what we need to do.

The 2c figure beloved of the we're-all-gunna-die crowd is a 2c rise from 1850. The 2c-3c figure mentioned in the paper is from 1975 ie 2.7c from 1850. So even there the paper doesn't go close to saying what you think it says.

Its good that you are reading non-approved stuff. You should read more Nordhaus - particularly his papers which demolished the economic basis of the Stern Report.

The bottom line is this. There is a agreement of sorts that temperatures have rise since 1850 and that some portion of that is caused by man. That's it. That's the full extent of the consensus. There is no consensus about what the future holds. There is no consensus about what should be done now. There is no consensus that the purported rises will occur or that, if they do, they will be dangerous. No consensus.

Now I know you'll come back with some new inanity but I will leave you alone. I prefer to debate with someone who has a clue.

Apologies Mhaze, you appear to think I addressed this post to you when it was to Leo Lane. Leo jumped in with his usual brand of insultingtrolling, and I replied in like manner. I hope you did not think I was addressing it to you. (Although some of the NASA links about the DANGERS of a warmer world are also pertinent to our own conversation).

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18621#332192

Mhaze, to continue: in 1988 Dr James Hansen warned Congress that a warmer world would be dangerous…

>>But Hansen didn't offer Congress a definition of what constituted dangerous climate change. 

So in 1990 a team of researchers from the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) took it upon themselves to try and answer that question.
In a report looking at the potential impacts of of rising greenhouse gas emissions, they discussed a number of ways scientists could measure the world's efforts to limit climate change. They suggested curbing sea level rise or restricting the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as two options. Another was to use global warming as a guide for where to set an overarching limit.
Based on scientific understanding at the time, SEI suggested that to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, a limit should be set at two degrees. But, the report warned, the higher the temperature rise, the bigger the risks from climate change.
"Temperature increases beyond 1.0°C may elicit rapid, unpredictable, and non-linear responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem damage," the report said, suggesting there is nothing necessarily 'safe' about a two degree limit.”<<
http://www.skepticalscience.com/2-degrees-history.html

But for a really old summary, here’s the 1958 Bell Science Hour starring Dr Frank C Baxter and Richard Carlson. It’s only 1:18, and shows how early the ‘alarmist’ science really is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg

And there isn't a National Academy of Science that doubts any of it!

"Apologies Mhaze, you appear to think I addressed this post to you when it was to Leo Lane. "

Oh OK. I think it was the fact that you started the post with the salutation "Hi Mhaze," that confused me.

Apologies Mhaze, you appear to think I addressed this post to you ... (then explanatory text and link).
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18621#332192

I just assumed by the tone of your post that you had thought *both* previous posts applied to you. Obviously not. You just don't accept new data when it doesn't conform to your world view, like James Hansen's findings and everything else I supplied in this link.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=18621#332227

But from my layperson's perspective and the little I've read on it, it seems the actual climate sensitivity seems to still be being debated. 2 degrees may have been a benchmark in one iteration of the science, but of course, science, unlike denialist dogma, evolves. It may be that the accumulating evidence is that the climate is far more sensitive, and limits like 350ppm or even 1.5 degrees may become the new benchmark. Want certainty? Go join a cult. But science evolves with the data, and while 2 degrees may have been the initial rule of thumb, climate is one of the hardest things we've ever studied and new data indicates the planet is cooking right now.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Well Max, I'll leave you to work out who you are talking to and what you mean by what you write. I can't follow it and I suspect neither can you.

But just a few points:

* the issue I raised that you sought to disavow was that there is no consensus that the future temperatures will be dangerous or catastrophic. Finding papers from the 1970s by a (highly regarded) economist doesn't cut it. Nor does alluding to vague assertions by one of your gurus (Hanson). There is some consensus about the past but none about what the future holds or what we should do about it. Running around asserting that the science is on your side in regards to the future is so much cant.

* climate sensitivity is completely irrelevant as regards this issue. I suspect you don't know what it means. Kind hearted as I am I'll give a quick explanation. Generally climate sensitivity refers to the estimated increase in temperatures as a result of a doubling of CO2e if nothing else changes (ie ignoring feedbacks). At the moment the ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity) is calculated to be somewhere between 1c to 4.5c. Most studies put it between 1 - 2c. It says nothing about how dangerous or otherwise any of those purported changes (if they occur) may be.

Remember this is for a doubling of CO2e. Since 1850 we've only increased CO2e by 45% so along way to go to a doubling. My view is we'll never get there which is one reason I'm not concerned about the scare.

Mhaze,

"the issue I raised that you sought to disavow was that there is no consensus that the future temperatures will be dangerous or catastrophic."

D'uh! We've already had this conversation in one respect, and that was about your stubborn insistence that there was vagueness about extreme weather events. Your dreadful example of cherrypicking the IPCC in that regard still stands as a record of the intellectual dishonesty of denialists.

BTW, I'm glad you accept 'climate sensitivity' is a thing. The vague way you were fluffing about a 2 degree rise a few posts back had me a little alarmed.

Hansen has a lifetime experience measuring climate change. Do you?

Every National Academy of Science on the planet has signed on to CAGW, and together deliver centuries and centuries of scientific experience.

Here are some pertinent points EVERY National Academy of Science has signed on to:-

>>>Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[8]

Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[8]

Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[8]

The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[9]
The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[10]<<<

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

But there's no scientific consensus about the risks. Not at all! ;-)

Hi Mhaze:

>>>A large fraction of species faces increased extinction risk due to climate change during and beyond the 21st century, especially as climate change interacts with other stressors (high confidence). Most plant species cannot naturally shift their geographical ranges sufficiently fast to keep up with current and high projected rates of climate change in most landscapes; most small mammals and freshwater molluscs will not be able to keep up at the rates projected under RCP4.5 and above in flat landscapes in this century (high confidence). Future risk is indicated to be high by the observation that natural global climate change at rates lower than current anthropogenic climate change caused significant ecosystem shifts and species extinctions during the past millions of years. Marine organisms will face progressively lower oxygen levels and high rates and magnitudes of ocean acidification (high confidence), with associated risks exacerbated by rising ocean temperature extremes (medium confidence). Coral reefs and polar ecosystems are highly vulnerable. Coastal systems and low-lying areas are at risk from sea level rise, which will continue for centuries even if the global mean temperature is stabilized (high confidence). {2.3, 2.4, Figure 2.5}

Climate change is projected to undermine food security (Figure SPM.9). Due to projected climate change by the mid-21st century and beyond, global marine species redistribution and marine biodiversity reduction in sensitive regions will challenge the sustained provision of fisheries productivity and other ecosystem services (high confidence). For wheat, rice and maize in tropical and temperate regions, climate change without adaptation is projected to negatively impact production for local temperature increases of 2°C or more above late 20th century levels, although individual locations may benefit (medium confidence). Global temperature increases of ~4°C or more13 above late 20th century levels, combined with increasing food demand, would pose large risks to food security globally (high confidence). Climate change is projected to reduce renewable surface water and groundwater resources in most dry subtropical regions (robust evidence, high agreement), intensifying competition for water among sectors (limited evidence, medium agreement). {2.3.1, 2.3.2}<<<
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
Clickable link:
http://tinyurl.com/pahrayn

oh dear, Max. You're loosing it again.

Just like you did in that earlier thread that you now, surprisingly, refer to. The thread where you were so comprehensively shown to be a mere shrill that you were reduced to ad homs like flat-earther and moon-landing denier when all your other assertions were shown to be baseless. The thread where you were reduced to essentially saying that when the IPCC put things in their report you didn't want to be true, they didn't really mean it. I'm sure it gives you comfort to misremember your humiliation in that thread and I'll leave you to wallow in that comfortable falsehood.

"BTW, I'm glad you accept 'climate sensitivity' is a thing. The vague way you were fluffing about a 2 degree rise a few posts back had me a little alarmed."

Actually you're a lot alarmed, without too much actual thought or evidence. Yes, I know climate sensitivity is a thing and I, unlike you, know what that thing is. Glad to be of help in your education on that tidbit.

Now you're relying on wikipedia to prove what you can't prove from the science ie that there is empirical evidence and a scientific consensus that a 2c warming will be catastrophic. Wikipedia? Really?

Ever heard of William Connolley? Of course not. He wouldn't have come up in your approved reading list. I'll leave you to research him and why you should ignore wikipedia in climate issues but you could start here:

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/lachlan-markay/2010/10/21/wikipedia-bans-radical-global-warming-propagandist-editing-all

Mhaze,
In a perfect storm of denialism you ignore the second IPCC post entirely, and are reduced to childishly putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "I hate wikipedia because some people abuse it". Guess what? The article you point to highlights the objectivity of wikipedia, as they eventually *banned* that troll, didn't they? Also, how much do I need to spoon feed *you*? Apparently you don't know how to scan down a wiki page to the sources? Oh dear oh dear! Here's the source those wiki claims were based on.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/tssts-4-1.html

Instead of whining, put up or shut up. If you've got evidence that SHOULD be on that wiki page but ISN'T, why not simply submit it here? Note: that's not a request for your childish trolling echo-chambers — we know trolls like you have *plenty* of them. (Like your previous link: “Exposing & combating Liberal Media Bias". Gee, no bias in your sources, is there? ;-) Says a lot about why you're a climate denier!)

Put up or shut up. What we're after is is a National Academy of Science that claims 2 degrees or higher isn't a problem: not a concern at all. You've got work to do. Shouldn't be hard at all given how utterly biased you say wikipedia is. Off you go. Choof choof, there's a good chap.

Max says:” I replied in like manner. I hope you did not think I was addressing it to you. “
To understand this remark in perspective, Max baselessly labelled me a troll. On consideration of his behaviour, I was satisfied that the term fitted him exactly.
I have always maintained a civil attitude to other contributors, but if their behaviour is unacceptable, as is Max’s behaviour and language, then they cease to deserve my consideration. He has shown himself to be an uncivil, at times patronising troll, his lies and dishonesty govern his category, and my attitude to him..
Max’s situation is that his attempt to lie his way out of the fact that he has no science to show any measurable human effect has been ludicrous and insulting. Robert Carter made us aware that the carbon dioxide hypothesis of the fraud promoters has failed.
2. Max has no answer to that, and his increasingly childish posts, for example:” perfect storm of denialism you ignore the second IPCC post entirely, and are reduced to childishly putting your fingers in your ears and shouting "I hate wikipedia because some people abuse it". “
3. This type of tantrum indicates Max's childish desperation.
4. He falsely uses the scurrilous term “denial”, when he has no science to deny, and is reduced to relying on the false claim of the National Academies. If there is no science to support the assertion, and they certainly have none, their false claim is no better than your despicable dishonesty, Max.

Hi Leo,
rather than keep you in suspense, I stopped reading after "Max baselessly labelled me a troll" then saw blah blah blah. I'm simply not bothered by anything *you*, of all people, have to say on the subject.

I didn't ignore your post. Our posts simply crossed.

You need to get a grip. As before, as you become increasingly aware of the paucity of evidence for your beliefs, you start lashing out.

Despite your quotation marks I didn't say I hate Wikipedia. I use it regularly. I just don't rely on what it says about climate. Since i was one of the 2000 or so contributors banned by Connelley I have no desire to rejoin that particular battle.

As to your AR5 quotes, let me just remind you of what we were discussing here.

The original article said that there are at least 8000 extinctions per year CURRENTLY happening. My idea of logic says that you can't justify or defend that type of lunacy by showing that some people are predicting large numbers of extinctions in the future. Clearly your idea of logic is different.

Equally my point was that there is no consensus among scientists about the future temperatures and whether there'll be catastrophic consequences of a failure to act now.

I don't dispute that there are some scientists who say this, but that doesn't mean that all or most or even a plurality say it.

So when you run around claiming that THE science is on your side and that anyone who disagrees with your particular brand of chicken-littleness is anti-science, its just bonkers or alarmist - apologies for the tautology.

Hi Mhaze,

You appear to be relying on the Goebbels maxims:

"How fortunate for leaders that men do not think."

"If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed."

>>So again where is the evidence that a consensus of scientists think its (the 2c limit) valid? Where is the evidence that a consensus of scientists think its dangerous?<<
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/images/icon_link_grey.gif

Then, if in doubt that people believe you, just repeat!
>>Equally my point was that there is no consensus among scientists about the future temperatures and whether there'll be catastrophic consequences of a failure to act now.<<

The IPCC consensus can be summed up in 5 words.

THE HOTTER, THE MORE DANGER

You’re playing semantic games and straining at gnats in pedantic little riddles. Yes, the climate appears to be MORE sensitive than we first thought, and Phil Jones is attacking the 2 degree limit because that might be way too generous! The reality might be we have to stop emissions far earlier than 2 degrees!

Stop playing semantic games to hide from the truth, and actually read some of the reports you claim don’t exist. The hotter, the more danger. It’s not hard. It’s not one arbitrary number or limit, but an exponential curve where 2 degrees will profoundly wound our lifestyle and global economy, 4 degrees risks civilisation itself, and may even plunge us into feedback loops that take us through to 12 degrees, hell on earth!

IPCC
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg2/en/tssts-4-1.html

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf

Clickable link:
http://tinyurl.com/pahrayn

Put up or shut up about that wikipedia page on the Scientific Opinion on Climate Change.

All you have to do is find ONE National Academy of Science that disagrees with the IPCC consensus. Just one climate department in any peer-reviewed National Academy of Science on the planet. I thought you implied that page was terribly trolled and there was another reality out there... are you having trouble finding the 'reality' you like? Just one? Or is that too hard?

Max wants to divert us from the fact that he has no science to justify his support for climate fraud. He says:" All you have to do is find ONE National Academy of Science that disagrees with the IPCC consensus. Just one climate department in any peer-reviewed National Academy of Science".Nonsense, Max, the onus is on you.
He has nothing but his dishonesty, and believes that the dishonesty of the Academies somehow assists him.
It does not, Max. They have no science , so their support is worth what the support of the Royal Society was worth, when a fraud supporting statement was procured from it. It had no science, so it was worth what the national academy is worth, nothing.
Your dishonesty persuades no one, and neither will theirs. You still have your status as dunce of the school, but nothing else, not even a minimal grasp of science.

Oh, it's Leo. That's a shame. Mhaze, where are you?

Your puerile slogan, Max:” THE HOTTER, THE MORE DANGER “ shows your tenuous grasp of climate science: Stanford University is some help:
“ Warmer periods bring benign rather than more violent weather. Milder temperatures will induce more evaporation from oceans and thus more rainfall -- where it will fall we cannot be sure but the earth as a whole should receive greater precipitation. Meteorologists now believe that any rise in sea levels over the next century will be at most a foot or more, not twenty.[2] In addition, Mitchell flunks history: around 6,000 years ago the earth sustained temperatures that were probably more than four degrees Fahrenheit hotter than those of the twentieth century, yet mankind flourished. The Sahara desert bloomed with plants, and water loving animals such as hippopotamuses wallowed in rivers and lakes. Dense forests carpeted Europe from the Alps to Scandinavia. The Midwest of the United States was somewhat drier than it is today, similar to contemporary western Kansas or eastern Colorado; but Canada enjoyed a warmer climate and more rainfall.”
https://stanford.edu/~moore/Boon_To_Man.html

Humanity prospers during global warming.

If climate liars were locked up, Gore would be put away for life.

Hi Mhaze,
just a reminder that the wiki on Scientific Opinion on Climate Change stands until you can show *one* case where your conspiracy theory about it is verified. Just one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Unfortunately for you that means finding a National Academy of Science that disagrees with the IPCC consensus, and as far as I am aware, there aren't any. Which begs the question: *what* conspiracy of trolling on wikipedia?

All you have is evidence that a known pro-climate troll was banned. Are you going to pretend that no denialist trolls have ever been banned from wikipedia? So for this reason, because ONE article on a right-wing website discussed ONE particular case of wikipedia trolling, you're just going to snub it as a good collection of source-documents to investigate? Tinfoil hat much? My oh my, what a cliche you have become.

Not surprisingly, Agronomist and fellow warmists are unable to table empirical scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming. What these politically-correct people peddle is pseudoscience.

There is no scientific justification for taking government action to reduce CO2 emissions. Consequently, there is no economic justification for taking such action.

There is no justification for government to spend scarce taxpayer or borrowed funds on so-called climate control. There is no measurable climate impact of the billions and billions of dollars spent -- actually wasted -- on such action. However, there is no denying the fact that expenditure on replacing reliable, low-cost coal power generation with renewable, unreliable, intermittent wind and solar power has impacted adversely on power prices,

Not surprisingly, denialists assert blah blah blah without a scientific theory of their own! See, science isn't just sticking your fingers in your ears and throwing a childish tantrum. It involves attacking the current prevailing theory with EVIDENCE! Every time denialist try to play science — as in EVERY time — the peer reviewed crowd reply and expose the half-truths and outright lies.

On my side:
1. 97% OF THE OPINIONS THAT MATTER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#/media/File:Cook_et_al._(2016)_Studies_consensus.jpg

Every National Academy of Science and credible private scientific institution on the planet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

2. THE DEMONSTRABLE LAWS OF PHYSICS OF CO2, see:-
* Mythbusters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
* The candle demonstration at 90 seconds in. Candle demonstration goes for a minute only.
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/

3. THE RADIATIVE FORCING EQUATION which measures how much incoming radiation not only warms the planet, but is trapped from exiting back out to space, which is an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs per second!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

4. THE WORLD’S TOP 4 TEMPERATURE DATABASES

NASA
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01/february_2016_s_shocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/

WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
“Geneva, 21 July 2016 (WMO) _ Global temperatures for the first six months of this year shattered yet more records, and mean that 2016 is on track to be the world’s hottest year on record.”
http://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-climate-breaks-new-records-january-june-2016

THE MET OFFICE
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature

NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

5. DRY LANDS GETTING DRYER, WET AREAS GETTING WETTER
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120521104631.htm
https://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php/en/climate-science-highlights/463-wet-regions-getting-wetter-dry-regions-drier-as-planet-warms

6. THE OCEANS GETTING WARMER, SHRINKING ICE SHEETS, GLACIERS RETREATING, ACIDIC OCEANS, DECREASED SNOW COVER, AND SEA LEVEL RISE.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

On your side:
Cranks and Contrarians and 7-day Creationists.
Tinfoil hat, much?

PS Raycom: Dr James Hansen, the world's foremost climatologist that diagnoses our climate emergency, agrees with you on renewables.

Many climate experts, including Dr James Hansen, say we HAVE to adopt nuclear power because wind and solar only work a third of the time. Today's grids simply cannot cope with a high degree of unreliable power. These experts are not impressed with Germany's eye-wateringly expensive renewable white-elephants that have hardly cut CO2 emissions. France has been cleanly fissioning uranium instead of fossil fuels for decades, and has the cleanest, highest electricity exports in the world. Dr James Hansen, said:
"Can renewable energies provide all of society’s energy needs in the foreseeable future? It is conceivable in a few places, such as New Zealand and Norway. But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy."
http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/08/05/hansen-energy-kool-aid/

Dr Hansen promotes a book by his friend Tom Blees: "Prescription for the Planet" free at the link below.
http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/pdfs/P4TP4U.pdf
It recommends we just nationalise electricity with Integral Fast Reactors that eat nuclear waste, converting a 100,000 year storage problem into hundreds of years of clean energy, are inherently and passively safe, and avoid the 2.6 million coal dust deaths we get each year.

If we listen to Dr Hansen on our climate problem, why not the solution? He says we must build 115 reactors a year! (This is entirely possible, as it is slower than the GDP per reactor ratio the French achieved decades ago).
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/nuclear-power-paves-the-only-viable-path-forward-on-climate-change

It is difficult to say whether Max’s posts are purely dishonest or based more on stupidity which is certainly a big factor.
He repeats the97% lie again. When I posted a complete refutation of the 97% lie, he said he was referring to a different lie to the one refuted and gave a web address at which had no mention of the topic. That was a stupid lie, as is the Hiroshima bombs nonsense.
What is clear is that he has no science to support his assertions, which are based squarely on his dishonesty.

Mhaze really is having trouble finding that lone National Academy of Science, isn't he? What's happened Mhaze, given up?

Leo Lane: What is clear is that he has no science to support his assertions, which are based squarely on his dishonesty.

In other words, just another science and economics illiterate greenie.

Hi Raycom,
in logical debate, mere name calling does not actually make the following disappear in a cloud of magical denial. Try addressing some of these will you?

On my side:
1. 97% OF THE OPINIONS THAT MATTER
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#/media/File:Cook_et_al._(2016)_Studies_consensus.jpg

Every National Academy of Science and credible private scientific institution on the planet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

2. THE DEMONSTRABLE LAWS OF PHYSICS OF CO2, see:-
* Mythbusters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
* The candle demonstration at 90 seconds in. Candle demonstration goes for a minute only.
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/

3. THE RADIATIVE FORCING EQUATION which measures how much incoming radiation not only warms the planet, but is trapped from exiting back out to space, which is an extra 4 Hiroshima bombs per second!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_forcing

4. THE WORLD’S TOP 4 TEMPERATURE DATABASES

NASA
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2016/03/01/february_2016_s_shocking_global_warming_temperature_record.html

http://climate.nasa.gov/

WORLD METEOROLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
“Geneva, 21 July 2016 (WMO) _ Global temperatures for the first six months of this year shattered yet more records, and mean that 2016 is on track to be the world’s hottest year on record.”
http://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/global-climate-breaks-new-records-january-june-2016

THE MET OFFICE
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature

NOAA
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/

5. DRY LANDS GETTING DRYER, WET AREAS GETTING WETTER
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120521104631.htm
https://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php/en/climate-science-highlights/463-wet-regions-getting-wetter-dry-regions-drier-as-planet-warms

6. THE OCEANS GETTING WARMER, SHRINKING ICE SHEETS, GLACIERS RETREATING, ACIDIC OCEANS, DECREASED SNOW COVER, AND SEA LEVEL RISE.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

On your side:
Cranks and Contrarians and 7-day Creationists.
Tinfoil hat, much?

Max Green, you show your ignorance.

You have not tabled any scientific evidence that substantiates the hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming.

Neither has anyone else, whether they be a scientist, a believer in a “consensus”, or from a "science academy", "NASA", "met. office", etc.,etc.

Raycom,

What do you dispute? I mean, even Mythbuster has proved CO2's radiative forcing!

A few short video's that show CO2's heat trapping ability:-
Mythbusters: 3 minutes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I

Watch the candle at 90 seconds in! The candle heat demonstration only goes for a minute.
(The rest of the video is great, and demonstrates the accuracy of today's climate models).
http://climatecrocks.com/2009/07/25/this-years-model/