Dear runner,

Foxy asked you a direct question and once again you have responded with drivel and misdirection.

What it does is show just how empty your kit bag is and emphasise what a blowhard you are.

Now why don't you take a moment and respond properly for once.

Oh Foxy, not the 97% rubbish again. Darl, I think I'd have more respect for a young earth creationist claiming a 6400 year old earth than someone still falling for the 97% stuff. The whole thing has been utterly discredited so much its hard to believe there are still some around who buy it.

I'm sure I've explained it to you before but let's try once again.

Back in 2009 two researchers (and I use the word loosely) Doran and Zimmerman sent out a questionnaire to 10000+ scientists asking two questions

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Most scientists including those you'd call denialists would and did agree that temperatures had risen.

Of the original 10000+ survey requests, 3146 replied. (At least some who didn't reply said the survey was way to vague to be of any value).

When the 'researchers' compiled the results of their survey, they didn't like the answers. Only about 80% answered yes to question 2.

So what does any good scientist do when the results don't marry with the belief systems....fudge the results. So they started to eliminate certain types of scientists and got down to about about 1000 survey answers. Still the results weren't what was desired. So more fudging. Finally they got down to 79 (out of the original 10000) of which 77 answered yes to question 2. Heh presto! 97% and the gullible have bought it ever since.

Despite you saying (or regurgitating) that these 79 scientists think the warming was "extremely likely dut to human activities" in fact they merely agreed that humans have had a "significant" effect. Some of the 77 said they thought 20% was significant. The IPCC's definition on the issue is 50%.

So actually nothing like what your preferred media have misled you to believe. But I guess you'll just ignore it, eh?

SR,

You don't need to "ignore the physic properties of CO2" just better understand them. No one is saying CO2 doesn't cause warming. But its operating in a spectacularly complex system. CO2 makes up a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere. It absorbs heat from sunlight in only some of the spectrum. So if CO2 were 100% effective at absorbing 100% of the light in its spectrum, it wouldn't have the ability to much vary temperatures.

Indeed even within the so-called consensus community, this is recognised. There is a concept called TCR (Transient Climate Response). This is the calculated increase in temperature caused by a doubling of CO2 if all else stays unchanged. The number is still disputed but it is generally accepted to be between 1 and 2 degrees C. That is, if we double CO2 (and we aren't even close to that) temperatures will rise by less than 2C which the alarmists keep saying is the goal.

So how do they get to their scary (to you) scenarios? By assuming feedbacks. eg they say that if CO2 causes temperature rises, then water vapour will rise. Water vapour is a far more efficient greenhouse gas. I'm sure I explained feedbacks to you previously when you showed a complete lack of understanding of them.

Anyway, the whole scare is based, not on CO2 but on these postulated feedbacks. But in its most recent report, the IPCC acknowledged that they know very little about feedbacks, how great they really are and indeed whether they are all positive ie some might be negative feedbacks offsetting the temperature rises caused by CO2. Indeed there is some recent research showing water vapour decreasing rather than rising ie a negative feedback.

/cont

/cont

So just naively asserting that CO2 causes some warming therefore we're all gunna die, is the opposite of science and even the opposite of adulthood. Using you're pregnant women scenario, the doctor says that since we know having sex causes pregnancy, since she had sex she must be pregnant - no other possible causes for the weight.

Of coarse, part of a hypothesis is making predictions and seeing if they work out. So doctor says you'll give birth in 9 months. When it doesn't happen, he says just wait, the science is settled and you will give birth. In the meantime stop having sex ( = stop CO2 output.)

As we know the climate science is riddled with failed predictions. But since its now a religion rather than a science, the believers just agree to forget the failed predictions and totally believe the new predictions.

While here, just back to all those scientists who are working on different hypotheses about why the slight increase in temperatures over the past 200 yrs occurred or doing work that questions AGW. Do you acknowledge that their work and existance proves that statements like ""Scientists are united in their findings" are plain wrong. I'm just asking since it seems Foxy is going to dodge the issue and when I put it to Belly and our resident fake academic, they just pretended that nothing of that sort of 'other' science existed.

mhaze,

My information comes from NASA and NASA tells us that -

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed
scientific journals show that 97% or more of actively
publishing scientists do agree. There's more at:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

If you have evidence to disprove what NASA tells us -
as I said to runner, show us the evidence for your claims

The stage you can share with runner.

I'm fighting for truth, justice, and the anti-anthropogenic global warming way!
Mr Opinion,
So, how are you actually fighting climate change ? What life-changing, GW preventing habits are you adopting ?