Max, YOUR sick and tired?
Who the hell are you to be sick and tired of anything.
BTW, your mates are in NO position to comment on anything, because they are not privy to the truth, only some facts, which are being steadily debunked as we write, so don't you dare get on your high horse as if to be anyone who knows anything about what's going on.
I ask a lot of questions and getting very few answers, and so far let me make it quite clear, it IS some kind of conspiratorial con job.
I'm sick of people like you blustering on as if you are right and everyone not of your mental deficient mind set is wrong.
Well ask questions, don't just accept the BS you want to believe.

OK Max. So, you prejudged me as an unhinged loon with a privately held theory of global warming? And for that reason you were not even going to bother verifying my arguments, especially because by asking you to Google "images, global temperatures,10,000 years", I was asking for the moon? Well Max, you did not take my "responses" seriously, so I don't see how you can whine when I returned the compliment and did the same thing to you that you were doing to me.

My next premise, was that climate scientists had hardly covered themselves in credibility when for 30 years, they had made laughably inaccurate predictions, which had with the passage of time proven to be untrue. And that was why they were losing support from the public. Instead of simply acknowledging this simple fact, you got clever and realised that of the ten examples of climate scientist predictions that flopped, only one actually entailed climate scientists. Here was your chance at a misdirection which could derail my argument, which you already knew was essentially true.

OK, easy fix. I will just rephrase my statement and say, that the spokespersons for the HIGW cult, and their media echo chambers, have for 30 years been making fatuous statements, declaring that within a very short but always receding away period of time, catastrophe would betide us all unless we repented and amended our sinful ways. Seaside cities and entire nations would sink under water, the oceans would boil over, the earth would crack, and nameless abominations would crawl forth and roam the old earth. Every member of the public with triple digit IQ's remembers their predictions.

Those members of the public old enough to remember earlier doomsayers, knew that this sounded like yet another Chickenlittle scenario like the Coming Ice Age, Peak Oil, The Population Bomb, and the Millennium Bug. If your predictions get proven wrong by the march of time too many times, Max, you can hardly blame the public when they stop believing in your shrill, grossly exaggerated alarmism and instead start listening to the opposing point of view.

Hi Max. You submitted 7 hot button links and I watched all of them bar one which would not load. Submitting 7 hot button links and expecting me to refute them all in 350 words is hardly debating in good faith. So I will critically examine only the first two.

Your first link tried to shift the blame for the "Coming ice Age" debacle from climate scientists to a sensation seeking media. The presenter submitted an article from the
National Academy of Science on climate change, which even he describes as a "Model of ambiguity". You seem to be making the same claim today, when you defend climate scientists from their supposed predictions published in the press, of impending doom. But you forgot one thing. If the public should blame the media for sensationalising global cooling, which was bunkum, then why should not the same standard apply to day with global warming? The press is just exaggerating what the climate scientists are really saying?

Next link.

"Scientific analysis of past climates shows that greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes." "Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – have been implicated in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past.

Really? I now expect you to submit any evidence that our regular cycle of repeating 1000 year climate warming and cooling periods is caused by CO2 and Methane. How did these gases suddenly appear every 1000 years, and more pointedly, disappear?

"First, to infer that humans can't be behind today's climate change because climate changed before humans is bad reasoning (a non-sequitur)."

Actually, it is quite good reasoning. And perfectly logical to point out that earth's climate's has changed with clockwork regularity without any input by human CO2..

Now I have looked at and critiqued your links, are you finally prepared to look at mine?

How alarmists rig their graphs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvrsA0XlYGg

There has been no causal link between CO2 and global temperatures for 570 million years.

http://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNTFQ6N_yYfXwAtl0Gb8--ISlWoVWQ:1579759552251&q=images+CCO2+versus+global+temperatures+570+million+years&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiU3sT3hpnnAhVUOSsKHU6JC_8QsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=2021&bih=1085&gws_rd=ssl#spf=1579983171968

Climate change is cyclical and the earth warms and cools roughly every 100 years.

http://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNT7uyVn46BcSBL68_NKYYZrWsUo5g:1579761855037&q=images+10,+000+year+temperatures&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwio3MvBj5nnAhXizDgGHQXADBcQsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=2021&bih=1085&gws_rd=ssl#spf=1579983207700

LEGO

You wrote:

"My position is, that the climate is changing because the climate has always changed. And for hundreds of millions of years, humans could not be blamed for that. The earth warms and cools in repeating cycles, and there are cycles within cycles. These cycles are historically recorded and predictable. The primary reason for a warming planet today is because we are entering yet another scheduled warming period which was predictable and right on time."

Thanks for pointing out that climate change is the cause of climate change.

Apart from that observation all I can add is that the underlying reason that you are an AGW denier is that you do not understand the mechanics of the greenhouse gas effect. I think that's obvious to everyone.

Mr O, AND NEITHER DO YOU!

Fester,
I’m into all sorts of geoengineering approaches to solve climate change but they need the most rigorous testing as if we get them wrong, they can be as bad as some of the side effects of climate change itself. Ocean fertilization sounds great, and that’s one area where I totally disagree with environmental author Naomi Klein. Nuclear power is another! (I’m a big fan, and basically think we should nationalise the electricity sector and roll the one standardised nuke off the assembly line as the French did in the 1970’s.)

But there are drawbacks.

EG: The cheapest approach, Solar Radiation Management, could be run for just $5 billion a year. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdQRPUtVrSc
But who is going to get all the jobs running this?
Who gets reimbursed by a carbon tax or whatever?
More, which country gets to set the global thermostat? America might like it cooler to protect their massive breadbasket from going dustbowl, but too much SRM could shut down evaporation over the Indian ocean and weaken or even STOP the monsoon. That’s the fresh water for a BILLION PEOPLE. Isn’t that as bad as the climate change we’re trying to stop?

Finally, who’s going to pay for these solutions? “Because, climate change is just a fund-raising conspiracy, d’uh!” (Deniers here have about the same level of respect for science as Young Earth Creationists. Indeed, I suspect Runner and some others ARE YEC’s.) As long as a good chunk of conservative old f*rts don’t accept the science and are voting against climate change no-one is going to fund either weaning off fossil fuels or funding big geoengineering projects. But the main point is to stop digging the rubbish up and burning it and poisoning our population, landscapes, and climate. Coal is an expensive form of electricity as you pay for it once in your electricity bill and then again in your public health bill. Nuclear doesn’t do that.