So runner you clearly do not believe in Physics and Chemistry.

Your comment is meaningless unless you can provide evidence to support your claim.
"Faith" is a word associated with religion; it does not belong to science. Experiments can be conducted showing how CO2 traps and retains warmth. Those experiments can be conducted in a High School Science Lab.

Having an opinion or guess, is just the first stage of scientific method, the next stage is to study as much literature as possible; then, a hypothesis is formed, the hypothesis is then tested. When a hypothesis has been shown to hold through experimentation, then it can be replicated continually. Experiments showing how CO2 can trap and retain heat has gone through this process and can continually be verified.

runner, please debunk the film clip referred above, and my comments on how fossil fuels were formed.

Without greenhouse gases the Earth would virtually be an icy orb.

Alan B wrote:

" ...during a cyclical waning phase of the sun, and since the mid seventies. (NASA) ..."

What you say is factually incorrect (quelle surprise!).

While the very most recent cyclic phases have been unusually 'quiet', those in the 70's and 80's were among the highest recorded.

As an aside, might I say that there are few traits less attractive than arrogance born of ignorance. One of those few less attractive traits is when the ignorant arrogance parlays into self-righteous attacks on those who are neither arrogant or ignorant - as you regularly to with the author (and others).

____________________________________________________________

If you think the shrieks of outrage from the AGW industry were hysterical (in both senses) following the entirely laudable withdrawal from the Paris 'agreement', just wait until you see the tantrums if the so-called 'HONEST' act gets through congress, as now seems likely.

Basically it requires that the EPA only act on scientific advice and evidence once that evidence has been shown to be correct. A reverse precautionary principle if you will.

When the alarmists work out that they'll have to prove their claims BEFORE governmental action will be taken, the tantrums and screaming will be such as to make the tantrums of a 5 yr old denied an ice-cream seem rational.

Thanks, Don, for the update on climate fraud activities, and Judith Curry’s sensible, honest commentary..
The lying, black, racist dunce is fortunately no longer able to give presidential backing to climate fraud.
Trump has lived up to his promise to oppose it.
We have the usual fraud backers on this thread promoting climate fraud, but they are now well known for their dishonesty, so have no effect.
Reflux disappeared when asked the source of the lies he posted about Robert Carter, as he always does when he corners himself with his own dishonesty.
Did you fabricate the lies Reflux, or do you have a source that you are able to quote?
True to form, Reflux will demonstrate his ill bred incivility by again neglecting to answer a reasonable question.

Leo

You are always quite amusing with your nasty comments; haven't laughed so much for ages since seeing your last entry.

Thank you for directing any readers towards a view that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

ant

we are not talking a about a few school lab tests here. We are talking about frauds who have consistently been caught out with totally dud predictions, the renewable charlatans who continue to defraud the tax payer and a total lack of any real science to back their idiotic claims. I am surpised you believe in physics and chemistry as you would realise that no scientist is smart enough to forecast future weather patterns or events. Idiotic predictions have nothing to do with physics or chemistry. They have hoplessly failed over the last 5 or 6 decades and yet they still have huge numbers that hold to the faith. Any scientist interested in truth must be highly embarassed by what is called climate 'science'. Now they tell us that the heat is hidden in the ocean. How convenient! In 100 years we will laugh like we do now with the scientist who for years believed they could count the stars.

runner

My point was that the foundation of climate science in relation to greenhouse gases is sound, the science being built up over almost two centuries and vindicated by science experiments. It is a point deniers are not able to displace. You have not been able to displace the corner stone of climate change. Making predictions about future climate is a completely different area to the one I wrote about.

In relation to your comments:

Of interest is that a couple of scientists employed by Exxon Mobil were asked a couple of decades ago to predict when it would be possible to drill for oil in the Arctic Ocean. The answer was about now. ExxonMobil had been negotiating with Russian company about drilling for oil at the time that sanctions were placed against Russia. Predictions were useful for Exxon Mobil

ExxonMobil have just been fined 2 million dollars as a result of acting against the sanctions.

The trend line in relation to ice volume in the Arctic has consistently gone down, it is possible to predict with a business as usual process that ultimately there will be a period when the Arctic is ice free. The record as far as least sea ice was created in 2012, the thickness of sea ice is about a metre less now than in 2012 at the same time.
Once the albedo effect has been lost, climate will be impacted.

But, from the denier point of view having some idea of risk factors are not important.