To Steelredux.

Your premise is, that Patrick Moore is not a climate scientist and therefore he has no credibility. Gee, we could have a lot of fun with that bizarre reasoning. Keith Murdoch should not have thought that he knew batter than British generals, when he told the public that Gallipoli was a military catastrophe that the generals were trying to cover up. John Harrison could not have solved the problem of Longitude which had baffled scientists for 200 years, because he was just a village carpenter who made clocks.

Bong to that one, Steelie.

What Moore solved for me was one good point which you thermophobics could flourish. I had seen the very convincing presentation by Al Gore in which he showed a seemingly indisputable close correlation between CO2, global temperatures, and sea level rises. But Moore displayed another credible explanation for that. Moore's presentation also displayed that over a time period of 570 million years, there is no correlation at all between CO2 levels and global temperatures.

This proves to me, that CO2 levels have little effect on global temperatures. What drives global temperatures significantly, consist of a dozen different factors which act either with, or against each other, to produce the wild climatic variations the Earth has experienced over a very long period of time. In shorter periods, the earth goes through regular climatic cycles. This present warming period is just the latest in a series of warming periods which are about a thousand years apart. It is right on schedule, and the only connection it has with CO2 is that it coincided with humans releasing CO2 into the atmosphere.

When you first contributed to this topic, you screeched "there is more bloody CO2 in the atmosphere than for the last 3 million years!" Moor's graph showed that if anything, CO2 levels have been declining over 570 million years to it's lowest levels, before humans inadvertently started correcting that. His premise that all plant life may have become extinct if humans had not intervened is credible, and confirms media stories citing agronomists, which have suggested just that.

Leo

You say .. “This is a constant refrain of the flea, demonstrating his ignorance of climate. Only a complete ignoramus, lacking all knowledge of climate,….”

Yes it is an embarrassment isn’t it Leo, deniers argued the point that temperature had stopped increasing after 1998.
Your mate Bob Carter wrote about it Leo.
His headline reading “There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998”

You only use abuse Leo, as you cannot offer anything that is evidence based.

To Mr Ant.

I am not joking at all about you needing to switch sides, my dear Ant. Both of us agree that either the skeptics, or the thermophobics, are definitely engaged in massive scientific fraud. To the extent of altering and "adjusting" graphs and historically collected temperature data. The big question is, which side?

With my good self providing ever more evidence and extremely good arguments supporting the fact that it is the alarmists doing it, your only response is to try to make me argue the case for something you call "the 1998 denier datum point". Which I have never even heard of. Yet you keep insisting that I argue it, presumably because you already have your arguments ready and you want me to go into territory you are comfortable with. Bugger that.

Instead let's use a bit of plain logic.

Now you remember Al Gore standing in front of an audience displaying a graph showing the close connection between repeating cycles of global warming, CO2, and sea level rises, right? Well, there I am out mowing the lawn and thinking about that, and it struck me. Let's select just one of those cycles where climate suddenly got warmer because of Human released CO2.

The only explanation for that could be, that somehow, in the dim distant past, a previously unknown race of either human beings or space aliens must have begun industrialization on planet Earth, causing CO2 to rise, which dragged temperatures and sea levels upwards. But why then why did the climate cool again? Was it because these unknown people went extinct after destroying their environment? But wait, even that doesn't wash.

If CO2 leads temperature, (instead of the other way around) then once started, there must have been a runaway greenhouse effect. Because the world's oceans hold 40 times more CO2 than the atmosphere, and warming oceans releases CO2. As the oceans warmed, they would release even more CO2. More CO2 causes temperatures to rise, oceans warm, more CO2.

The premise that CO2 drives temperature has whiskers on it.

Dear Lego,

You wrote;

“Your premise is, that Patrick Moore is not a climate scientist and therefore he has no credibility. Gee, we could have a lot of fun with that bizarre reasoning. Keith Murdoch should not have thought that he knew batter than British generals, when he told the public that Gallipoli was a military catastrophe that the generals were trying to cover up. John Harrison could not have solved the problem of Longitude which had baffled scientists for 200 years, because he was just a village carpenter who made clocks.”

What on earth are you trying to say? If the generals were covering up something then they obviously knew it was a stuff up so Murdoch was not reinventing the wheel. Harrison did not go against conventional science at all, it was just that an astronomer was in charge of the King's prize and attempted to reject any non-astronomical solutions.

Neither of your examples have the slightest bearing on the issue.

Try this on for size, if there were four people in a room discussing your case and there was disagreement between the three surgeons on how to proceed but then the non-doctor spoke up and came up with something out of left field would you really put your life in his hands over the other three?

Moore really only presents stuff that is generally accepted and makes out like it is some great revelation. It isn't. Of course it is recognised that warmer temperatures mean greater CO2 degassing by oceans and that the earth has gone through wide fluctuations in both temperatures and CO2 levels. While CO2 was not historically the principal driver in temperature variations the artificial releasing of millions of tonnes of it into the atmosphere, by the simple laws of physics, will warm the planet.

The argument that rapid temperature rises will not allow for plant and animal species to properly adapt nor will it allow humans to do the same without great cost stands and nothing Moore says disputes it.

Dear Steelie.

I was responding to your clear implication that Patrick Moore was not qualified to talk about climate sciences, since he was not a climate scientist. Using that mindset, nobody who is not a frocked and diplomaed expert in any particular field has credibility. I reject that completely, and I used two very good examples of how non experts got it right over the supposed experts.

The example of Harrison is particularly relevant. Almost the entire (97%?)of the British scientific community despised Harrison and opposed his ever being recognised as the man who solved Longitude. This was because he was a giant embarrassment to the PC thinking of the time. The Royal Society was outraged that a lowly carpenter and non gentleman could solve a problem that had befuddled the science communities of several nations for well over a hundred years.

What was worse, was that the British scientific community knew he was right. They cheated and hounded him. They set him ever more difficult standards to comply with, and even allowed his greatest critic to control the validation process. They tried every dirty trick in the book to delay his work so that they could come up with a scientific solution to Longitude.

Your own example of surgeons is quite valid. But if you like swimming, and three doctors told you that they had discovered a new disease, and you and everybody else must never go swimming again or else something terrible would happen to you all in a few years time. And if the years passed and nothing happened, and those same doctors were demanding you give them lots of money to continue their work. And other non doctor medical personnel like medical researchers and nurses said the doctors were wrong, would you not at least take seriously what the deniers said?

Thank you for acknowledging "that CO2 was not historically the principle driver in temperature variations". That makes you smarter than Ant. But if you accept that, then why do you now think that CO2 must be the principle cause of climate change today?

LEGO

I'm still waiting for evidence from you.
CO2 breaks down in the atmosphere, as does methane. You don't read science. Before being able to discount something you need to have a working knowledge. The Earth over thousands of changes its orbit and also changes on its axis.
Deniers have been caught out fraudulently changing information to prove their agenda.
Should scientists tamper with data, they will soon get caught out. Remember science must be replicable.

A couple of years ago I came across a very useful article in deciphering what is true, and what isn't in science. It gets beyond causality as a determining factor through testing a concept via a number of prisms.

http://extranewsfeed.com/what-climate-skeptics-taught-me-about-global-warming-5c408dc51d32

Use the criteria that Seth Miller uses and it shows how your denier points of view fall apart.
But, I doubt whether you will. To begin with, the 1998 argument deniers used to argue about doesn't hold up.
Take Criteria 1, which is strength, there is no doubt that CO2 does react to infrared radiation. Experiments show that to be the case.
Criteria 2, is Consistency, the example given in the article is growing seasons changing.

And so on, with the other criteria described in the article.