ALTRAV,

Wrong again!

I most certainly do understand the mechanics of the greenhouse effect. As an environmental sociologist I am constantly researching what scientists and scholars are saying about the environment, learning a hell of a lot along the way.

These are areas you are not qualified in of course do not understand. All these things are arcane to you and you withdraw into yourself and seek comfort in an AGW / climate change denialist ideology that does equate with what is happening in the real world.

I honestly feel sorry for you denialists. Unfortunately for some reason I have never been able to understand why evil seems to always win out over good. (PS Coming from a humanities background I actually do know the reason - I'm just telling you I don't know the reason!)

ALTRAV

My third paragraph above should read:

"These are areas you are not qualified in and of course do not understand. All these things are arcane to you and you withdraw into yourself and seek comfort in an AGW / climate change denialist ideology that does NOT equate with what is happening in the real world."

Sorry about that but I reckon you knew what it was suppose to say anyway.

LEGO,
First, let me say how impressed I am that you stuck with a whole episode of “Climate Crock of the Week”. I take back any implication that you are just the typical internet troll ignoring the answers and just ‘rotating, not debating’. I don’t want this to sound patronising, but well done! Cheers mate.

I am trying to debate in good faith but you have raised dozens of different objections to climate science and it’s going to take a while to work through.

Now, you raise an interesting question about how lay people are to know what’s going on in science. As a geek with a bad case of the humanities, I get it! I guess previous generations could have had more of an excuse to get impressions that they didn’t have the time or money to correct. More excuse to remain ignorant. Because, before the internet, who really had the time to get in touch with the IPCC? How would you? Were they even in the old telephone books? Then you’d probably have to buy their report, or at least pay for freight.

But now that we have the internet and access to so many wonderful free reports and interivews and youtube and Q&A’s with actual climatologists, we of all people have less excuse to remain ignorant about these things. The full IPCC reports might be a bit much at around 800 to 1000 pages. But the Summary for Policymakers, the IPCC’s report for politicians, is usually around 40 pages and they’ve tried to make it understandable for lay people. http://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/2/2019/05/SR15_SPM_version_report_LR.pdf

So I simply do NOT accept that climate science has made “laughably inaccurate predictions”. Hmmm, actually, a qualifier. There’s a few scientists in the “Arctic News” group that talk about methane bombs going off in the Artic that will wipe out civilisation in the next few years. The broader climate community have peer-reviewed and rejected their work, just as they have various denier arguments from the usual 3% suspects.

Max, apparently, there is need for clarification.
I do not deny the possibility of a warming cycle, because the earth lives under the control of cycles.
Different things happen to it at differing times, but they keep re-occurring, with obvious regularity.
What I may not have been clear on is the fact that WE are being blamed for it.
I thought I had made that clear months ago.
Obviously not, and since then it has never been highlighted.
So, seeing as how we have contributed a poofteenth of a percent to this whole debacle, I don't see what all this fuss is about.
GW or CC or whatever you want to call it apparently is a natural occurrence, because it's cyclic, it just might resemble a sine curve.
So to clarify, I'm not arguing the possibility of GW, because we are coming out of a cyclic mini ice age, and eventually we will peak, several hundred years from now, it will begin it's decline back into it's ice age phase, like it has done for millions of years.
It is the fact that certain commercial interests and wealthy despots have created the misnomer that WE are responsible for GW and CC.
And so it is that I say it's a con-job, and more and more evidence is being produced to back this scenario.
I want to make it clear, just as the science does; WE ARE NOT TO BLAME FOR GLOBAL WARMING!
I want as many people to realise this, and just get on with their lives, without the need to make ANY drastic changes, lifestyle or otherwise.
I certainly am NOT!

ALTRAV,

Goodness gracious, I really think you actually believe that you know what you're talking about.

I'm thinking Where is the problem?

I reckon you are just not thinking about what's in the sources you are reading.

Mr O, so by your own rationale, I can take it that YOU, DO believe mankind is guilty of the ridiculous claims that we are the MAIN and aggressive cause for this GW thing?
Are you telling us that you don't believe the world goes through major dynamic cycles, with one of the results being that it cycles between heating and cooling, every few hundred years?