Dear ALTRAV,

The only ones who are remonstrating about the overwhelming consensus amongst the scientific community that humans are responsible for the rapidly increasing global warming and its consequential climate change over the past 260 years are the creation scientists like Bazz, mhaze, runner, Hasbeen, etc.

People outside the creation science movement accept what the scientific community has been saying about the planet becoming warmer due to the increasing use of fossil fuels. It's only the creation science mob that keep trying to make it look like its an issue that cannot be resolved.

This post is complete nonsense. Those who believe such tripe are gullible and ignorant. They should start by understanding the power of the propaganda machine. Here’s a good start:

Holtzbrinck & Bertelsmann: Agents Of German Climate Imperialism
https://principia-scientific.org/holtzbrinck-bertelsmann-agents-of-german-climate-imperialism/

Next they should provide evidence to show that any global warming we might get this century would be net harmful – i.e. the total impacts of all impact sectors would be negative. Note: avoid selection bias.

In short, they will find that global warming is beneficial and global cooling is harmful.

Dear Peter Lang,

I see you side with the creation scientists.

To Mr Opinion.

it is said (without proof) that 97% of climate scientists consider Human Induced Global warming to be valid, and you think that this proves your case?

99% of ABC journalists claim that the ABC is not biased, and the other 1% had better keep their mouths shut if they want to keep their jobs in the next job cut back.

Think that is not valid?

Ever heard of Climategate? You know, the East Anglia Climate Research Institute guys who are living in an area where the Romans grew grapes 2000 years ago during the Roman Warm Period. Here is one of the leaked Emails from the bosses.

"If you think that Siaers is in the greenhouse skeptics camp, then, if we could find documentary evidence of this, we could go through official AGU channels to get him ousted."

Got that, Mr Opinion? If you are a climate scientist and you are a skeptic they will sack you. Who is going to hire a sacked climate scientist? No scientific research unit asking for public money will ever hire him again. He would end up selling encyclopedias, door to door.

Time for you to abandon this HIGW sinking ship, Mr Opinion, and pretend that you were one of the smart ones who always knew that Human Induced climate change is a hoax.

Alon, your whole argument fell apart with the statement that the seas
are rising. They are NOT rising.
Temperatures have been rising since the end of the Maunder Minimum.
That is not something I have seen disputed.
Then why is it so ?
Because it coincided with a period of lower maximum sunspot counts
and lower minimum sunspot counts.
Lower sunspot counts causes lower magnetic fields around earth and
therefore less interference to the path of cosmic rays.
More cosmic rays means more cloud cover and more reflected heat from the earth resulting in lower temperatures.

As the sunspot count cycle grew larger in amplitude the average
temperature rose. The smaller 11 year cycle is imposed on the longer
sun activity cycle and no doubt leads to some confusion.
That is what this alternate theory tells us.
I believe it has more fundamental connection to what we experience
than the CO2 theory which has some real difficulties.

Dear LEGO,

You are a true believer in creation science. May God bless your soul.