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these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.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."