Reflux wants to know what science is needed to" enable me accepting that this is not causing global warming?
Science already supplied by Robert Carter, demolishing the "science" produced by the dishonest IPCC
Reflux posted an assertion that Carter's science was lies.When asked for his source, he disappeared from the thread. Here is a copy of a subsequent post of mine to which he did not reply"


"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.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 25 July 2017 1:40:17 P

Carter showed that the assertion by the IPCC of human caused global warming was a hypothesis which failed

https://wryheat.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/failure-of-the-anthropogenic-global-warming-hypothesis/

It is not clear what you mean, flea. Do you now accept that there is no science to show human caused global warming? Why are you asking me to explain global warming, when you continually point out that I am not a scientist

Dear Steelredux.

To begin with, I don't have a clue whether or not your premise that "CO2 levels have not been this high for 3 million bloody years" is correct But I have heard geology Professor Ian Plimer assert that from what he knows of CO2 levels and natural climate variation, there have been periods in the Earths history when CO2 levels were higher, and the climate colder. And vice versa.

My problem with Mr Ant is that I do not know which side is telling the truth. I have heard it said from the Alarmist side that "97%" of climate scientists agree with HIGW, but nobody can tell me what the methodology was to find that figure. Was it a poll of every climate scientist in the world? Or, was it (as I suspect) a conference of a couple of hundred climate scientists where a poll was taken and 194 voted "yes" and 6 voted "no?

The only thing I can say about CO2 levels is it might cause global warming, so the HIGW hypothesis is based upon a credible possibility. But the IPCC is now claiming that global warming is definitely being caused by human released CO2. That is what I and every other "denier" has a problem with. If that is their hypothesis, then they have to prove it. They can't prove it. "Deniers" do not have to prove that HI CO2 does not cause global warming, any more than scientists working for the tobacco companies had to prove that smoking did not cause cancer.

Belief in this world saving religious movement is eroding fast. The reasons being.

The wild predictions of climate alarmists thirty years ago claiming imminent catastrophe did not eventuate.

The science is not settled.

Anybody who uses the law and lawsuits to shut the other side up, has something to hide.

Coastal real estate prices have not plummeted.

The noticeable change in tone from much of the mainstream news media, from total unswerving advocacy of HIGW, to a more measured and impartial tone, as they realise that they have been duped.

Leo

You supply crap references.
To gain any creditable evidence against climate science you will need to provide evidence from a reputable journal. The study would need to have a "doi" prefix. Blogs pushing against science have no credibility.

Science is a process where continual collection of data keeps refining what is known. You do not provide up to date references as none are available for deniers.

Many times I have provided the challenge of whatever happened to the 1998 datum deniers used. You are unable to answer the question, all you can come up with is abuse. Abuse is used by those having no evidence, it provides a smoke screen.

The flea has no understanding of the term “evidence”, but having no science, or sense, makes a fool of himself talking nonsense about evidence. He should stick to making a fool of himself about science, of which he has no clue
The flea says:” Abuse is used by those having no evidence, it provides a smoke screen ” So when the flea has no sensible response, he says :“You supply crap references.”No doubt the best a dishonest fraud promoter,like the flea, can do.

Lego

The consensus of climate scientists has been ascertained through going through peer reviewed reputable journals and sending questionnaires to climate scientists. A number of surveys have taken place; the range of results have been 90% to almost 100%, 97% being the mean. There have been quite a number of surveys; deniers pick on

If you can see past your ideology, research the end of Permian period when the 'great dying" took place. Nearly all life was almost snubbed out.
Technology is now available that can analyse chemical reactions which took place at that time.

Professor Plimer is not an atmospheric climatologist; yet, years ago he was touring around indicating that water vapour was what was causing the climate to change. Less greenhouse gases in the atmosphere equals less water vapour. Check the science.

Only an idiot would deny that Richard Alley does not produce science.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c90nab5i-TQ...

Leo

Great for you as a non-scientist, to display hubris. Let's get it very straight, you do not determine what comprises science.