Hello Jardine,
I don't have to prove a thing. I can just say "IPCC" and watch the tinfoil hat magically appear on your head. You can *try* to make the ABUNDANT, FREE **EVIDENCE** just disappear, but anyone with half a brain and half an ounce of honesty knows where to download the IPCC reports, read the material, ask their questions, and get the peer-reviewed answers. From scientists who demonstrate and prove, with the laws of physics and mathematics, just how stuffed we really are.

You know all this, yet you put up this silly song and dance. Asking me to prove climate change when the IPCC is there, ready to be downloaded, is as retarded as asking me to prove that the internet connection you used to write your post really works!

The REAL question is why you DON'T accept it. Smarter than all those scientists? Seriously Jardine, — I honestly don't owe you a thing. You're just an another dime a dozen internet troll. "Appeal to authority"? Dude, you've got tickets on yourself! Go download the IPCC reports and get yourself some evidence. And grow up a bit!

"The absolute *reliance* of your argument on patronising insult, and repeatedly squarking the word "science" as some kind of talisman, don't help you."
Repetition, much?

"You've proved my case, not yours."
Your repeated, long-winded trolling has proved my case. You've exposed what you really are.

"Answer my questions."
No. I don't owe you a thing, let alone parroting evidence I didn't assemble or write, as if I were somehow a climatologist. I'm not. Neither are you. But the one thing I do know is that every time some denialist has trotted out one of their myths, it turns out to be only a half-truth or lie. Every single time. They rotate through them a dime a dozen, not really responding to the evidence put before them that denies their previous myth. This is why I say "Denialist's don't debate, they rotate". Myth 1 shot down in ashes? Fire 2! Don't mourn your argument lying in ashes on the floor! Don't even reply! Just Fire 2, and 3, and 4, and all the way through to 20, and then when everyone's left from boredom and there's a new audience, just Fire 1 again!

Boring. If you want evidence, do some 'adulting' and go and download the IPCC reports. Grow up, and get it yourself.

So your argument is only this:
- "I know because other people told me so"
- "we face a problem as proved by the fact that Jardine K. Jardine, an anonymous poster on the internet, is a bad person"
- "I am right, because I am right, because I am right"

That's it.

All I have to do, to disprove your argument according to your own standard and your own methodology, is say "IPCC", and according to you, this is a total and stand-alone proof.

It's no wonder climate change policy isn't working for you, you clown.

Why don't you sit down and have a cry because the IPCC diagnosed the problem, and then Stern...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review

...and Garnaut...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnaut_Climate_Change_Review

... costed it and proposed various policies. Oh boo hoo! It obviously doesn't fit with your oh-so-precious worldview.

1. Do you agree that CO2 can refract heat back around our atmosphere and slow that heat leaving for space?

2. Do you agree that climatologists have demonstrated that, as well as the human race can understand something like this, that are are 95% certain we're causing climate change?

3. Do you agree that the IPCC has given credible grounds to accept that climate change will have vastly more losers than winners? If not, why not?

4. Do you think the climate books are cooked? Why?

5. Do you not see that this leaves you prone to tinfoil hat thinking?

6. DO YOU NOT THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER TO LEAVE FOSSIL FUELS BEFORE THEY LEAVE US? Or, do you believe that the fairies will go and refill all your precious oil-wells and coal-mines? ;-)

7. Now refuse to answer any of these questions, and put on a big show. Say 'rationally' and 'Puritan' enough times, and you might *just* convince yourself that you're behaving like an adult.

The IPCC is not a *scientific* body charged with determining *whether* we face catastrophic man-made global warming, it’s a *political* body charged with propagating the view *that* we do.

All you need to know is, THEY'RE DOING WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

They assume it in their premises, otherwise they wouldn't have a job. Like you, they are not interested in finding out WHETHER it's happening, they are only trying to get others to believe THAT it's happening. This is not the scientific method, it's the religious method, and the outgoing IPPC boss said it's a religion to him. What does that tell you?

Furthermore, to demonstrate how easy it is to defeat your flimsy jumble of credulous illogic, I'll make it easy for you.

Let's assume - very much in your favour - that all issues of climatology are conceded in your favour.

Okay?

What could be fairer than that?

Answer?

Now.

1. Prove, by reference to the subjective values of all relevant human beings now and indefinitely into the future, how you worked out the detriments versus benefits of global warming. What was your data set? Show your workings, in units of a lowest common denominator.

2. Prove how you know that the benefits of your preferred climate policy outweigh the detriments. Show your workings, in units of a lowest common denominator.

3. Are you using a discount for futurity? If so, what is it? If not, why not?

4. Who’s this “we” you’re talking about?

If you want me to answer your questions, you need to answer my prior questions first, and ask yours without
a) larding everything with sneering personal insult
b) assuming what is in issue.

Go ahead. Prove your case without assuming it.

You need to lay open your mental processes to falsification, because if - and since - you don’t, what you’ve got is religion, not science. You’re only demonstrating that you don’t understand what you’re talking about.

Jardine

At the beginning of the Industrial Revolution CO2 was about 270 ppm, currently CO2 is being recorded at just over 400 ppm.

Which gets back to earlier comments and question:

We need greenhouse gases in the right proportions to survive.
Coal fired electricity plants create greenhouse gases.
Internal combustion engines create CO2 and other gases.
The use of lawn mowers creates greenhouse gases.

The question is, where in historical times preceding the Industrial Revolution were there coal fired electricity plants and internal combustion engines?

The reference previously given in relation to Seth Miller provides 9 criteria by which science can be assessed. He illustrates his point by using CO2 as an example. Computer experimentation, meaning back tracking with known data shows how the changing climate can only be explained by the addition of CO2. Max refers to experiments conducted by Myth Busters, the first experimentation was discussed at a Symposium in 1856 in relation to experiments conducted by Eunice Foote.

https://extranewsfeed.com/what-climate-skeptics-taught-me-about-global-warming-5c408dc51d32#.7i37ct3qg

A further question;
More water vapour has been created over the normal processes of evaporation and transpiration. Why?