oh dear, SR, this is getting beyond silly.
Now SR demonstrates that he doesn't even understand the notion of CO2 as a climate driver. While I don't actually think it is a driver , you SR as a good and loyal alarmist are supposed to accept unthinkingly and uncritically that CO2 is the major climate driver over the past 2 centuries.

So when I say that they think that "CO2 is the driver" SR demurs in his usual inept fashion. You see the concept is that increasing CO2 is the root cause of all the warming. I don't buy it but I do understand the belief. SR does buy it and doesn't understand the belief.

So in his dumb analogy of the climate being just like a stereo system, the volume knob is CO2 and the amplifier is water vapour. Turn the knob and you get more volume. But now SR is saying that it’s the manufacturer of the knob is the real driver.

Now SR, I have graciously taken on the task of educating you on the whole issue. In the past I taught you about the hiatus and about trend calculations and about feedbacks. I’m even prepared to educate you about the nuances of the theory that you so faithfully and uncritically accept.
But I’m sorry. I draw the line at having to explain to you your own fantasy-world. I did explain to you that your pregnancy story showed the exact opposite of what you thought it said. I didn’t get around to explaining to you that your paint story failed due to your innumeracy (ie you talked about how adding colouring to base paint changed it property. But you didn’t realise that with CO2 being 0.04% of the atmosphere, the colouring you’d be adding to make the analogy approximate reality would be less than a drop in 4 litres) . And now I’ve explained your stereo stuff up (failing in stereo…kudos). But that’s it. You’re on your own in regards to your fantasy-world.

/cont

/cont

Now we find SR’s innumeracy telling us that one survey is better than the other because it had more subjects. BOTH surveys were of the views of climate scientists, not just climatologist, but SR appears to be unaware that his favoured one did that. He’s also unaware that his favoured survey is of papers and really only covered the views of about 200 scientists while complaining that the other survey was of a similar size. (oh dear).

As with most research SR does he decides on the answer he wants and then looks for the data. He found this Cook survey and it said what he wanted and that was the end of the research. Had he looked at the data he’d have found that “only 1.6 percent [of the papers] explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.” The paper got to the 97% figure by saying that any paper that didn’t specifically oppose AGW, accepted it i.e. it lied. But SR is used to falling for such cheats.

What I find extraordinary is just how little the local alarmists know while being utterly convinced of the theory.

Mention TCR and you get crickets.
Ask what a climate scientist is …crickets.
Mention that the IPCC has admitted it knows little about feedbacks…crickets.
Mention that plenty of scientists are looking at alternative hypotheses to the AGW theory…crickets.
Mention that the current temperatures have been exceeded in 3000 of the last 12000 years….crickets.

Its all just a case of ignoring any and all data that might conflict with the one true faith.
And then laughably claiming to follow the science. Following only the science that adheres to your pre-determined beliefs isn’t following the science. The very opposite in fact.

Foxy,
put all her faith in writings from the GISS division of NASA because apparently NASA is the ultimate authority on the issue, or something.
So I pointed out that even people in NASA know and are prepared to document the fact that GISS isn’t any sort of reliable or honest authority in climate change.

Response…crickets.

Then we get this piece of sophistry… “You're attempts at strawmen arguments don't do
you any credit.”

Quite what strawman arguments she alleges isn’t defined. Its just a case of having to say something when her fondest beliefs are challenged and alleging strawmen is as good as any other empty statement.
Might I point out that alleging someone is making strawman arguments without identifying what those strawman arguments are, is (ahem) a strawman argument.

Its been my observation over the past 20 odd years of being in groups like this that there is a clear divide between those who’d roughly define as being of the right and those would define as being on the left. I did see a paper written on this issue a while back.

The divide is this. Those of the right are basically individualistic. They write their views without seeking to adhere to the right-wing group. They are prepared to even disagree with those on the right in the group.
But those on the left are very much about being in the herd. Don’t criticise others in the group. Don’t divert from the consensus of the herd. And most importantly seek the approval of the herd as reassurance that your views are valid.

Foxy, when pressured, will reflexively praise anyone who might oppose her assailant. SR makes some dumb argument about this or that and she’ll praise it for no other reason than it oppose those who oppose her.

SR will constantly praise the left-herd for no other reason than it’s the left-herd. Mr O is desperately trying to find people who’ll accept his daffy ideas.

Among chimps, when the herd is threatened they’ll congregate and pet each other to assure themselves that all is well. It’s an accepted psychological reaction but in regard to debate, largely limited to the left. You see it in the Twitterverse where someone will make some clearly daffy assertion and the herd will defend it to the nth degree.

But a special mention to Belly who is quite prepared to advocate outside the group. Impressively, when the whole Russian collusion story blew up, Belly was the only person prepared to put his hand up as having been misled. The rest of the herd gathered around and assured each other that they really were correct despite all available evidence.

It’s a very interesting phenomenon. I think I’ll do some more research into it.

Nevertheless mhaze your faterfall of posts highlights my view one side is so very wrong here
That side,at best, is yet to be determined, the evidence is in the science known
But with record heat, cold, rain, drought, world wide it remains a debate
IF coal became worthless overnight, if petroleum too was no longer used
I suspect the anti climate changers would disappear too
They exist because, behind the scenes self interest drives the anti mob in to a place remote from truth

Dear Belly,

Pollution of the environment has begun to threaten
the ecological balance of the planet and the health
of many of its species, including ourselves.

The pollution problem is an exceedingly difficult
one to solve, for several reasons.. First, some people
and governments see pollution as a regrettable, but
inevitable by-product of desired economic development -
"where there's smoke, there's jobs."

Second, control of pollution sometimes requires
international co-ordination, for one country's emissions
or pesticides can end up in other countries air or
food.

Third, the effects of pollution may not show up for many
years, so severe environmental damage can occur with
little public awareness that it is taking place.

Fourth, preventing or correcting pollution can be costly,
technically complex, and sometimes - when the damage is
irreversible - impossible.

In general however, the most industrialised nations
are now seeing the problems and are actively trying
to limit the effects of pollution.

The most far-reaching effect of air-pollution is a
change in global climate. However,
atmospheric pollution is not an inevitable
outcome of industrial technology. It derives also
from political decisions to tolerate pollution
rather than bear the costs - probably including slower
economic growth - of limiting it.

Further, control of pollution is politically difficult.
For the economic interests behind "smokestack" industries
are a powerful political lobby that is reluctant to commit
the necessary resources to the job.