How much energy do climate scientists produce and how much do they waste?
We should round them all up and put them in a room full of exercise bikes and treadmills that generate power and maybe we could power some light poles of something.

Put a plaque on the power pole that says 'Powered by Climate Scientists'.

Or else we could always go for the number one option;
Which is simply throw these upstarts into an active volcano to appease the climate gods...

When it comes to global warming and climate change there are three types of people:

1. The denialists who refuse to believe that global warming and climate change are happening simply because they do not want their world to change.

2. Those (the bulk of people) who simply do not care and believe that it is someone else's problem.

3. Those who believe that global warming and climate change are real and are a threat to both the planet and human civilisation.

As an environmental sociologist I belong to the third group.

'As an environmental sociologist I belong to the third group.'

My opinion is you would do far more good going to an Indigeneous community and picking up rubbish than sprouting your blind faith. At least we could see something useful.

Finding an alternative explanation for the warming is only half the story. A credible alternative hypothesis also hs to explain why the CO2 isn't causing the warming that it theoretically would.

Back in the 20th century, when we didn't have as much data as we do now, those alternative hypotheses could have been seen as credible explanations. But just looking at the temperature data over a longer timescale changes the 1970s cooling trend to a warming one, we have enough different data sources to rule out false instrumentation as a cause. and we even know the relative contributions of variations in solar activity and of cooling pollutant levels - and they're nowhere near as big as from CO2.

A lot of work has also been done to calculate the effects of the AMO and other ocean currents. We can be sure the AMO is not the cause of global warming, but there's some concern it may be masking it.

___________________________________________________________________________________

runner,
Scientific method has proven not to be very useful for finding out about God. Indeed it can not even prove (nor disprove) the existence of God. All it can say is that unless God is trying to deceive us, your literalist explanation of creation is wrong.

___________________________________________________________________________________

calwest,
>Percentage of C02 in the atmosphere? 0.04 per cent.
Percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere in preindustrial times: 0.028%

>Percentage generated by humans? 3.0 per cent of 0.04 per cent.
The amount of CO2 generated by humans is more than enough to have raised its atmospheric contribution from 0.028% to its present level of 0.041%. Nature has been a net absorber of CO2.

But nature has a large turnover of CO2, destroying and creating so many CO2 molecules that the proportion of those molecules directly created by humans is only 3%.

It is deceptive to pretend that humans are not responsible for the rest of the increase in atmospheric CO2, but it fits your denialist ideology. And like nearly all denialists, you don't care about the truth.

If I'm wrong about that, let's see some evidence!

My question to the denialists is this: What evidence would be needed to prove that the current levels of global warming are due to anthropogenic activity viz burning of fossil fuels?

"As an environmental sociologist I belong to the third group".

And as a sociologist you would be most unlikely to have enough math to have any chance of actually understanding the science which totally disproves CO2 is more than a very minor bit player in the scheme of things. Also as a sociologist you are pretty desperate to get anyone to actually take your pseudo science seriously, so join the new religion.

Come on Aidan, we need a laugh. Give us your rationalisation of why all this global warming is making our winters so much colder.