SteeleRedux _ As you partly said to Hasbeen - Well old cock, this should be pretty easy for you, answer the following 4 questions.

1. Out of 100% exactly how much of the climate change can be attributed to humans?

2. What is the optimal average temperature the planet should be?

3. Scientists made all the predictions in the past without knowing there was another cause for the ice melting "a radioactive heat source is slowly melting it from underneath"
** Exactly what did they attribute the increased amount of melted ice too? Because whatever they attributed it too was wrong, do you agree or not? **

4. Take the trillions of dollars away from the solution, would there still be a problem? That's how much money will go from so called rich countries to poor VIA the bankers and Al Gore and others they will make billions.

__________________________________

Belly - Quote "Philip S not doing your statement that you do not needlessly insult others" Like your blind belief in GW, too bad you can't back it up.

Belly Quote "Just think very near half of the world agrees with us Many many country,s do too"

Time to pay the piper.

Name just one country that has polled all the people with a question about GW just one will do.

If you can't it make your statement absolutely false, if you have to lie to make your case believable then you have no credibility.

Maybe you would like to retract your statement.

Philip S.,

Perhaps these may help:

http://theconversation.com/lowy-institute-poll-shows-australian-support-for-climate-action-at-its-highest-level-in-a-decade-98625

http://news.stanford.edu/2018/07/16/poll-shows-consensus-climate-policy-remains-strong/

There's more on the web.

Philip S.,

I forgot to add this link which takes it globally:

http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/11/05/2-public-support-for-action-on-climate-change

Dear Shadow Minister,

For God's sake you lot really do have to refrain from quoting from rightwing, climate change denying, sensationalist rags at me. At some stage I'm just going to have to reply with “Find me a proper source or nick off”.

Okay here is what any decent newspaper with any normal desire to do proper journalistic research would have found. The Harvard University and 23andMe study defined 'native American ancestry' as follows;

“Throughout the manuscript, the term “Native American ancestry” refers to estimates of genetic ancestry from indigenous Americans found across North, Central, and South America, and we distinguish this term from present-day Native Americans living in the US. We use the term “Native American” to refer to indigenous peoples of the Americas, acknowledging that some people may prefer other terms such as “American Indian.” “
http://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(14)00476-5

Yet the DNA test performed by Stanford Professor Bustamante was far more refined. If you go to Figure 2 in his report you will see that following;

“The test sample's Native American ancestry falls between First Nations (Canada) and Indigenous Mexican peoples, as would be expected for Native American ancestry deriving from the lower 48 states of the United States.”
http://www.scribd.com/document/390895555/Bustamante-Report-2018

Now you are welcome to read the studies and tell me if I am mistaken but unless you are prepared to do even a modicum of research you lot really need to drop this. It makes you look mean spirited, even 'venal' and in thrall to the gutter press of another nation.

//They have, repeatedly and consistently but you as usual are determined to deny the physics. So I will repeat for the record CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas. Human activities have resulted in more of it in our atmosphere. Therefore the global temperatures have risen.//

//Come on Steely, assertions mean nothing. There is no proof to be found.//

OK... which of the specific 'assertions' that he made do you feel is unsupported by empirical data? Is it:

1. CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas?
or
2. Human activities have raised the atmospheric concentration of CO2?
or
3. Global temperatures have risen?

Because I've studied enough chemistry to know that the first two are definitely supported by empirical data. And recording temperatures... well, it's hardly quantum electrodynamics, is it?