Hey SteeleRedux

"I ask this question often but rarely get a decent answer, what physical property of CO2 do you want me to ignore that would allow me to dismiss that increasing the concentration of this important greenhouse gas will have no impact of global temperatures?"

CO2 doesn't have any physical properties, it's a colourless odourless gas unless in a solid state, commonly known as dry ice.
- Just messing with you -

Sorry but I'm honestly not in any way smart enough on the technical aspects of this topic to offer any sort of worthwhile opinion.

I'm willing to meet the other side half-way.
I'm not opposed to finding better ways to do things that are better for the environment, but this whole 'agenda', I just won't buy into it because I see it as a cornerstone of globalism

After the global elite put themselves in positions of authority, they want us to fund the whole thing for them ourselves, and make us think it was all our own idea, when it was theirs.

Hey ALTRAV,
To us it looks like desperation, but it probably is working;
There's no way for it to not work, because they'll never concede, nor give up.

Until we've all signed.
Or our leaders under representative democracy sign for us.
- And even then they'll keep shifting the goalposts.

'We'll now that we've got your pants down let's move things up a notch'

It doesn't matter anyway;
If you keep telling a lie long enough eventually people will believe it.

Stupid muppets don't realise what they're is signing theirs and their kids futures over to one world government.

AC,

as someone who knows nothing about anything to do with GW or CC, only what I see and feel around me as I travel the world, and I'm sorry but, other than these localised weather events every now and then and in such a way as to be both mobile in geography and in performance, I can't see a "pattern".
For me to begin to grasp the actuality and therefore the severity or relativity of these alleged, world wide changes in weather activity, I would want to see some indication of consistency.
In other words, a real and severe change in conditions both climatically and physically.
It's no use showing me pics of the ice breaking off and falling into the sea.
This has been going on for millennia.
So unless someone can confirm that the Earth does not, and has been going through cycles all it's life, then I can begin to consider the GW CC thing, not before!

Armchair, sorry I did not reply earlier as I was off this thread for
the 21 hours limit.
Yes, the Maunder minimum was the very low count of sunspots in the 18th century.
As I have interpreted the theory there are multiple cycles all going
on at the same time.
There is a cycle of variation in the suns radiation.
There is the 11 year cycle of the sunspots.
There are the change of the orbits of the earth, both distance from
sun and the rotation of the earths ellipse around the sun.
The change in sunspot intensity from maximum to minimum is modified by
the suns variation in radiation. In other words the sunspot cycle
is modulated by the sun cycle, and then modulated by the orbit changes.
The sunspot activity generates a magnetic field around the earth and
modifies the existing field.
The upshot is the magnetic field around the earth varies with sunspot
variation all modulated by all those cycles.

Then the cosmic rays are diverted away when the magnetic field is
strong but when it is weak they react with water vapour and form more
clouds than when the field is weak.
The clouds reflect back into space heat from the sun and shade the earth.
This variation in reflection and shading causes cycles of warming and
cooling of the earth over a period about 600 years.
Hence the 18th century was cold and the 10th and 11th centuries were warm.
This my understanding of what those teams have hypothesised.
I suspect this period from the Maunder Minimum to now has been seen
as Global Warming caused by co2. The Hypothesis suggests that co2
has only a very small affect on earth temperature. 0.01 deg C I think.
This theory explains the Roman warming, the Medieval warming and the Maunder Minimum.

Bazz,

Thank you, finally some information in basic language so dumb-asses like me can better understand WTF is going on.
These are the kinds of things that are used to come up with a final determination on something.
Not most experts say one thing and the rest say the opposite.
Like, yeah, that's going to convince me to agree with the findings.
Who's findings do I believe, if the experts can't agree?

Hey Bazz,

I found the article

Cook, J., et al. 'Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature', Environmental Research Letters 8 (2), 2013.