Hi Cato,

I've already explained Greta's position.
Her emotional reactions do seem to have helped get
her message across. Even to the extent that she has provoked
other emotional reactions from many and she certainly has
attracted both large numbers of followers as well as
detractors and critics. She has also enabled discussions on
the topic worldwide which in itself is an achievement.

I don't think that brushing her and her views aside is
very worthwhile, because obviously they have gathered
momentum and support from some unexpected sources.

Hi Foxy,

On what basis do you pretend to "explain Greta's position"?

One of her "positions" is that people are dying because of global warming. So, please explain. What were their names? Where did they live? What were the causes of death?

Greta has nothing to offer and it says a lot about her zombie followers that they would defer to the better judgment of a 16 year old on the autism spectrum.

Hi Cato,

I stopped reading your post after the first few words.
When you're ready to have a rational conversation
I shall be pleased to continue my inter-action
with you. Insults don't sit well. Nobody likes
or supports an illogical, abusive poster.

In the meantime - read my post
on page 5 about Greta, and also get hold of a copy of the 2018
IPCC Report that Greta submitted to Congress. It should
clarify things for you. That is if you are serious about the
issue in question and are not just interested in venting
your spleen against climate change for personal amusement.

Foxy,

You are bereft of facts, so all you can do is emote.

HI GrahamY - I don't want to come across as an expert on the atmospheric chemistry aspects of global warming or climate change. My previous comment was a quote from the American Chemical Society website. I think that is a pretty good source.

Regarding your first graph the IPCC says that "The net effect of slight imbalances in the carbon cycle over tens to hundreds of millions of years has been to reduce atmospheric CO2. The rates of these processes are extremely slow, hence they are of limited relevance to the atmospheric CO2 response to emissions over the next hundred years."

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/TAR-03.pdf

The IPCC recognises your point about several other factors besides CO2 being important to warming. Over the millions of years there have been periods when energy from the sun was 4% of what it is now so of course temperatures were lower, even when CO2 concentrations were higher.

Habitat protection / ecosystem protection, extinctions, Climate change are generationally challenging problems because 1) they require world wide efforts to be effective and our current civilizations aren't good at that and 2) it is almost impossible to set a dollar value to the impacts and we aren't very good at solving problems that we can't set dollar values to. I'd be interested in your thoughts.

cato
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/annual/aus/
"All of the ten warmest years have occurred between 1998 and the present, with El Niño contributing in five of these years. The warmest year on record was 2016, some 0.8 °C above the 1961–1990 average."

Hi ericc, did you look at the graph? You claim that temperatures are lower now than they were in an earlier era, when you say sunlight was weaker. How is that consistent with CO2 controlling the temperature? But actually the graph shows both temperature and CO2 higher, but the CO2 is higher by a much larger factor than temperature, pointing to a relatively low climate sensitivity to CO2.

I'm not going to deal with your quotes, because they are assertions by various bodies, not arguments or proofs. The problem with this debate is very few people will argue things on principles - they just want to rely on authority. You just can't have a debate on that basis. It just becomes a shouting match. And the genius of the scientific method is it treats arguments and facts as important, and opinions, and reputations, as unimportant. Polling experts is not a good way to find the truth.