Individual, I have not seen anything that suggests the ozone hole
affects AGW. The holes mainly being over the poles is a smaller area.
A climate scientist has been quoted; "AGW is not causing droughts !"
As far as the internet is concerned, it does use electricity so there
will be co2 generated. Who cares ?

I am not in a position to argue on scientific work on the earths
temperature. The new hypothesis I have found encourages me because it
means we can stop arguing about CO2 and save a lot of money.
It would mean that the warming we have experienced is a natural cycle.
It means that in a hundred years the cooling will be noticeable.

Reflux represents that he has done some study, then demonstrates his ignorance of how to conduct himself in a scientific discussion by setting down a pile of garbled rubbish which he purports to be a question.
It is neither in form or content a question, but a mere attempt to state a baseless opinion, and serves only to demonstrate the stupidity of Reflux’s attempt to participate in the forum.
Alison jane should not lower herself to acknowledge such nonsense as a question or otherwise. If Reflux cannot conduct himself in a reasonable manner, he should be ignored

Reflux wants to know what part of the properties of co2 should he should ignore in order to accept that increasing the concentration of this significant green house gas by a third has had no impact on global temperatures?
P there has been no such assertion. The baseless assertion was that human generated co2 affected temperature.
The leading climate scientist Rbert Carter showed that this was a scientifically bseless assertion. .Reflux will remember this, because he posted a baseless lie that Professor Carter had admitted he was wrong..

As I pointed out, at that time,” Reflux made the baseless assertion that Robert Carter’s science, which nullified the science put forward by Reflux, consisted of “proven falsehoods”.
Reflux has been asked how and by whom these alleged falsehoods were “proven” .
Reflux has not replied, which is typical of his mode of handlind a situation, where he has cornered himself with his dishonesty. Rodent-like, he will disappear into the crevices..
Reflux needs to ignore his baseless concept of the science, and understand that there is no science to show any human effect on climate.
Answer the question Reflux, as to how, when and by whom, Robert Carter’s flawless science was shown to be “ proven falsehoods”

Reflux made the baseless assertion that Robert Carter’s science, which nullified the science put forward by Reflux, consisted of “proven falsehoods”.
Reflux has been asked how and by whom these alleged falsehoods were “proven” .
Reflux has not replied, which is typical of his mode of handling a situation, where he has cornered himself with his dishonesty. Rodent-like, he will disappear, and neglect to answer, since an honest answer would incriminate him.There are, in fact, no "falsehoods"

The reason that co2 has not had the effect expected is according to
the Turku and Kobie Uni scientists is that the IPCC models did not use cloud data.
So the surplus affect was allocated to CO2 rather than cloud shading
and reflection or lack of it depending on the point in the cycle.
If they are correct then the effect of man made co2 is negligible.

Bazz: A relationship between clouds and global warming is interesting. I'd like to see one or two links to scholarly articles - preferably with one taking a counter view. Do you have any such articles that I could read up on this? (I mean 'journal type' articles, not newspaper/magazine/blog sort of stuff) - Garry.