Subjective selected personally preferred, risible and completely ignorant rubbish in my view! And completely refuted by the completely irrefutable fossil record, which shows beyond doubt, that a 2% rise in ambient temperature would all but destroy all life!

Yet this aging fossilised acidemic continues to tout the fossil fuel industry line, even as their own scientists take a completely different view privately behind closed doors, as indeed did those employed by both tobacco and asbestos!

And should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law for willful fraud as indeed should those trying to support a now completely untenable argument for the current status quo!

You'll have a nice day now y'hear.
Alan B.

As always with a cherry-picking Don, he relies on the opinions of other personally selected writers to say what he cannot! And his quite deliberate personal choice this time in a known anti-socialist right-wing conservative!

Need I say more!?
Alan B

Al

You've painted all the kettles black again. You need a spanking.

Dan

Alan, since the Younger Dryas period ended (circa 10,800 years ago), global temperatures have been more than 2 degrees higher than today and life has flourished so your claim is incorrect. In fact our current global average temperature is near to or about the same as the ‘Medieval Cooling Period’.

Consider CO2 represents 0.04 percent of the atmosphere, of which circa 3% is man made and annually produced, this represents an annual man made additional loading of 0.0012%.

Are you serious you believe this loading is going to have an impact on climate change (outside natural variation)?

If you do you are deluded.

The Venerable Bede (born about 674 AD) wrote in his 'Ecclesiastical History of Britain' about vines growing in Britain.

Fernand Braudel, in his massive three-volume work on the culture and economy of the Middle Ages, i.e. up to about 1800, wrote about the up-take of tobacco-growing in Britain after about 1620, i.e. in what was a cooling period after the MW period.

Do they grow much in the way of vines and tobacco in Britain these days ?

Joe

see another colossal failure with windfarms in England a couple of days back. No comment from abc. I wonder why?

Yes, they do grow wine vines in Britain today.
There is considerable work been done some back some years and two
published last month, that shows that global warming is a natural cycle
caused by a combination of the sun's thermal variation cycle, sunspots
and cosmic rays.
It is being taken very seriously and maybe will answer all those doubts
about global warming as being justified.
From what I read the cycle might be about 600 years. Don't hold me to that.
Here is some reading I have accumulated. The very last one might be the most interesting.

Scientists Find ‘Man-made Climate Change Doesn’t Exist In Practice
By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotJuly 12, 2019 1:39 PM
Turku Uni Kobe Uni No Global Warminghttps://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjShcrfrbjjAhXKdn0KHUJfC-oQFjAAegQIBBAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thegwpf.com%2Ffinnish-scientists-effect-of-human-activity-on-climate-change-is-insignificant%2F&usg=AOvVaw3yiMbgNXD1X-A1U4sHuhjp

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjShcrfrbjjAhXKdn0KHUJfC-oQFjABegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fitsnews.com%2F2019%2F07%2F11%2Fman-made-global-warming-theory-takes-major-hit%2F&usg=AOvVaw0hoI_1R93NpTVDz18Ho_QQ

Response to critism:Abbot & Marohasy
https://phys.org/news/2017-08-pair-global-natural.html
https://www.climatedepot.com/2019/07/12/scientists-find-man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist-in-practice/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703121407.htm

Helinski Times http://tinyurl.com/y3h3qpa5
Climate Depot http://tinyurl.com/y5huzsz5

CO2ers stirred up:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/08/22/machine-unlearning/

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-11/scientists-finland-japan-man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist-practice
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/12/2019 – 05:55
Physics.org : http://tinyurl.com/y6yeeqdf
hhttp://tinyurl.com/y5huzsz5
http://calderup.wordpress.com/category/3b-the-svensmark-hypothesis/
https://calderup.wordpress.com/category/3-climate-change/

Well those urls did not survive their trip through a couple of
word processors, so I used tinyurl.

Scientists Find ‘Man-made Climate Change Doesn’t Exist In Practice
By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotJuly 12, 2019 1:39 PM

https://tinyurl.com/yyymp4s8

tResponse to critism:Abbot & Marohasy
https://tinyurl.com/y7rxcbxm

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190703121407.htm

Helinski Times http://tinyurl.com/y3h3qpa5
Climate Depot http://tinyurl.com/y5huzsz5

CO2ers stirred up:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2017/08/22/machine-unlearning/

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-11/scientists-finland-japan-man-made-climate-change-doesnt-exist-practice
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 07/12/2019 – 05:55
Physics.org : http://tinyurl.com/y6yeeqdf
hhttp://tinyurl.com/y5huzsz5
http://calderup.wordpress.com/category/3b-the-svensmark-hypothesis/
https://calderup.wordpress.com/category/3-climate-change/

Well that looks better anyway.

Heard just a moment ago on the News that the Fijian Prime Minister urged Australia to do everything possible to reduce global warming. Either the ABC failed to mention it or the Fijian PM didn't divulge what his Govt is doing to reduce Global Warming.

Bazz if you want a hyperlink to work you must ensure the ‘s’ is removed from the https component i.e. you only need http://. It won’t work otherwise
Cheers
Galen

I have always believed that GW or CC or whatever the hell the greens and the thieves want to call it today, was a constructed or fabricated LIE!
I do not deny that we humans have added all manner of things to the world and therefore the environment, the reality is that what we are alleged to have done, is nowhere near what the the so called experts are accusing us of.
The world is a BIG thing with a lot of surface made of solids and liquids.
To imagine that we in the course of our duties could affect something the size of the Earth, is many things, but they are all in the realms of "fantasy".
The natural disasters we are and have always witnessed are nothing new, any changes to frequency and intensity, are explained through the study of the only thing that affects our universe and all within it.
The SUN.
Focus your research and questions around the sun, and you will have your answer.
In the meantime, let us not get sucked into this "renewables" scam which was created as just another form of extracting money, not only from govts, but also the public.
Renewables IS a thing worth considering, but not in their current form, there is a long way to go before they will be commercially or domestically viable.

Ahhrrrggghhh, yes Galen I forgot that. Sorry anyone looking at those
sites will have to copy and paste.

Dear Galen,

It is disappointing to see someone still trotting out the kinds of figures you have just tossed our way about CO2.

This is the salient one;

We have gone from well under 320 ppm of atmospheric CO2 to well over 400 since 1960. There is nobody of repute saying this is not been caused by anything other than human activity.

For you to call anyone deluded for not accepting these figures is the height of hubris along with a decent dash of self incrimination.

I have never been convinced that CO2 driven global warming was the
answer. There were just too many questions about such a process.
One of the most significant to me was that the records show that first
the temperature rises then later the CO2 rises ! Not the other way about !
I was never able to get a satisfactory answer to that.
Then there was all the figures and it just seemed unreasonable to
expect such a small amount of CO2 to have such a large affect.

Then all the hurricane figures etc showed decreasing numbers instead
of the increasing numbers we were told had arrived.
It was all too flakey to put much trust in AGW.
Then the "We'll all be dead in 12 years" topped it off.

Now we seem to have a reasonable hypothisus that blames the sun and
cosmic rays and a control theory that matches history.
EG Roman times, the Middle Ages warming. The 15th century economic
boost and the Maunder Minimum.
If it is correct, we will be entering a cooling period.
Pay attention school teachers, you might have a long climb down.

Dear Bazz,

Well because you have at least couched your post as a query I'm happy to attempt to provide an answer.

When you say; “One of the most significant to me was that the records show that first the temperature rises then later the CO2 rises! “ but why wouldn't they?

It is accept science that increases in CO2 lagged increasing temperatures after ice ages in the past. The rising temperatures were driven largely by solar cycles and the CO2 increases added about 30% to that warming.

This is the first time CO2 is the principal driver and is operating largely independent of solar influences.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/310/5752/1313.full

It all be Renewable-Fascist Konspiracy. You fools!

All those ABC peaceniks who refuse to feel pleasures of hot warm (but unfortunately not moist) blast of only occasionally exploding Cold Fusion ENERGY.

Behold the Mao chick selling Discount Takeout "Chinese High Yield Nuclear Tests" which admittedly crisped a few Sizzling Mongolians http://youtu.be/BuX5xug9prk?t=18s

SR,

"Human activity" is a pretty broad church.

Has anybody separated out all (or many) of the 'human activity' factors which might be causing temperature rise, to determine which ones can be ameliorated and/or minimised ?

For example, how much do asphalt road surfaces kick up urban temperatures ? And air-conditioning in those high-rise sealed buildings ? Yes, I know that air-conditioning produces cold air, but still ?

And, on a completely different track, 'natural activity', how much do sun spots, cosmic rays, etc., etc., kick up temperature ?

Out of all that, how much does CO2 contribute to the half-degree warming over the past eighty years, and the inch-rise in sea-level over about the same period ?

Or are these 'taboo questions' ?

Cheers,

Joe

Dear Loudmouth,

We are talking about the demonstrable increases in CO2.

There are very good accounting of the amount of CO2 humans are putting into the atmosphere and simple physics tell us the result. There may well be other extending or mitigating factors but the core science around the direct impact of CO2 is irrefutable. Why is this so hard for you?

SR,

it's not just hard for loudmouth, but hard for the majority of people who are not prepared to accept something as fact when there are any conflicting facts or factors by their peers, challenging some of the facts we are expected to believe without question.
Those of us with a more skeptical and inquisitive demeanor are prone to thinking beyond the obvious and looking into the background of some of these claims.
If there are doubts or exclusivities, it automatically brings into question the thing in question.
This is where GW or CC sits with a rising number of people daily.
It does not help the cause when trying to highlight the negatives of GW or CC and showing pictures of cooling towers at a nuclear plant emitting steam and trying to BS the public into implying that what is actually steam is some kind of dangerous smoke.
You see ALL the other stuff suggested as evidence from reputable sources, like NASA, we can't question or even understand, so we don't know the terms of reference and therefore the 'line' that was adopted in arriving at their findings.
And so we remain skeptical.

Thanks, SR, but I was curious about all of the factors that might be leading to global warming, of which the increased production of CO2 is reportedly a major one.

If we're talking about an increase in heat in the atmosphere, is it possible that the burning of fossil fuels - regardless of the by-product of CO2 - and the conversion of the energy generated into electricity which is used, say, for air-conditioning (so two sources of extra heat production: in the power stations and in the operation of all those AC appliances) has been adding to global warming, particularly to the urban heat island effect ?

And to what extent, if any, are any 'natural factors' like sun-spots etc. ?

It would be nice to have a break-down of how much different factors each contribute to global warming, so that we can get an idea of what proportion is the fault of CO2.

And, conversely, to what extent can, say, a square kilometre of re-forestation, (or other ameliorative factors) can contribute to removing CO2 from the atmosphere ?

Cheers,

Joe

plantagenet are you sure it has nothing to do with the smarties protecting the multi trillion dollar industries in renewables?

Loudmouth,

I ask, if someone were to answer you and furnish you with the data and information you request, would/could you trust it?
Is it not possible that it could be simply cut and pasted from existing data and information, which more than likely could come from pro-GW,CC sources.
I have learned that in life, more and more we are being lied to, mis-led and generally used up, for some one else's financial or power gain.
But ALWAYS with the result that we end up losing or paying.
So I am always skeptical and careful not to take any information at face value, until I have researched it more or come to a conclusion about it's true value.
If my enquiries render an open finding, with no tractable or definitive conclusion, the thing in question, by it's own definition is not to be believed, until there is consensus.
Remember the old joke;
What is the definition of madness?
Doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result each time.

Altrav,

Yeah, I forgot about volcanic eruptions and marine fissure emissions. I don't suppose we can do much about them.

I agree that we need to spend time investigating claims one way or the other, as much as our particular expertise allows.

My point about air-conditioning, motor vehicles, etc. in urban areas is that, by definition, they produce heat energy which, my elementary physics knowledge suggests, can't be destroyed, only converted into some other form of energy. The gist is that the heat that we need or produce (maybe electric cars will minimise this) dissipates into the atmosphere, kicking up the temperature imperceptibly - no need to blame CO2 in those cases - except, of course, in the production of electricity in the first place.

I'm much more concerned with ameliorative programs: re-forestation, carbon sequestration, whatever, and why there isn't much more focus on those to reduce CO2 already in the atmosphere ?

Joe

Loudmouth,

I can only wonder as to the extent of these allegations that the human race is responsible for.
I have said in the past that the Earth is a big, very big, dynamic structure.
It is alive, it has a living centre, and a living surface, so it is possible that it suffers from what the usual daily, weekly, monthly, yearly and so on, cycles create naturally.
Temperature rises and falls are nothing new, and the fact that the CO2 levels also fluctuate, only means that it is just one of the elements that make up this world, at a particular moment in time.
I choose to stand back and consider the relativity of this current controversy, which has several names, ie; GW, CC.
In standing back I also look at the Globe Atlas, and see how very localised cities and areas of pollution are compared to the absolute vastness and area of the Earth as a whole.
It behoves me to consider ALL manner of reason as to why something is so.
I have been a witness to too many lie's and mis-information, for the sake of money and power.
And having experienced these egregious actions and seen the results and ramifications I am always mistrusting of these so called major events and seek who/what, is/are behind them.
I cannot ignore things like the Y2K bug, another lying con job.
And so it is that I find myself stuck on OLO mainly for the sake of "keeping the bastards honest", as a well known past politician used to say quite regularly.
I cannot reason with the unreasonable, and it appears that OLO has more than it's fair share of them, not that I can mention her nom de plume, and her band of misguided followers.

SR, Altrav,

When I think about the level and means of discussion twenty years ago, i can only say,with deep gratitude:

THANK GOD FOR OLO !

Loudmouth,

I didn't know OLO has been going for twenty years or so.
Were there the stubborn, pig-headed, unreasonable, and arrogant types we have today?
I wish I had known about it back then, but as usual, I was otherwise engaged just trying to get ahead, so no time for such luxuries, unlike these days, which I might add, are still very busy, but I don't have to focus so much on day-to-day issues of survival, so time for some distractions.