Dear mhaze,

It's good to see you $1 brains presenting your view. We need conflict just as much as we need consensus to make our world understandable. It's too bad you were never able to acquire an education worthwhile having.

Guess what replying with cheap sarcasm to the 30 year rule and then re-cherrypicking your favourite 15 years shows you to be? A cherrypicker! NASA on the 30 year rule (for lurkers).
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/noaa-n/climate/climate_weather.html

MHAZE, you've revealed what kind of denier you are, and I'm not writing to you at the moment but more to any lurkers that might be confused about your early 20th Century comments. From what I've read, the climate scientists have accounted for the variability and the warming in the early 20th Century wasn't as great as it is now, but was still significant given it shows that even the small amounts of CO2 we added then had an impact.
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century-advanced.htm

MHAZE apparently doesn't trust the world's top temperature databases, as they've all been 'homogenised.' MHAZE says "its a standard term in the science" but of course just prior said: "Preferably one without the recent 'homogenisation'. Hmm, contradicting yourself much?
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8989#295150

NASA's GISTEMP tracks the increases in temperature. http://tinyurl.com/y3js28tc
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
The World Meteorological Organisation confirms that the last 20 or so years have all been in the hottest on record.
http://tinyurl.com/yxdadu8r
The UK's Met Office also confirm the last century of temperatures keep rising, and the last few decades are the hottest on record and we keep breaking records. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2018/2019-global-temperature-forecast
NOAA also confirm it. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
Other evidence from the natural world confirms warming:-
Why are the cooler seasons late and spring arriving earlier and earlier?
Why are the glaciers retreating up mountains?
Why is the *multi-year* thick ice retreating at the Arctic and Antarctica? I'll tell you. 4 Hiroshima bombs per second equivalent extra heat from our CO2 going from 280ppm pre-industrial revolution to over 400ppm now.

Dear Max Green,

CO2 levels being produced by the Industrial Revolution only really start to accelerate at an alarming rate from the 1950s. The reason has less to do with our physical world and a whole lot to do with our social world. In the 1950s New York Madison Street ad men invented consumerism which resulted in increasing usage of fossil fuels to manufacture and power all of the gadgets people in the First World just had to have each year like the latest model cars, washing machines, ovens, etc., etc.

We are the problem and exponentially growing world population where 7.7 billion of us are wanting a First World lifestyle driven by unbridled consumerism is driving CO2 levels to unacceptable levels for our species to survive.

Let us briefly look at the man made climate change is fraud group
What are they defending, why, what true evidence do they have
If we project the likely short term outcomes of true action to stop carbon emissions they may give the answer
See in related threads, electric cars for instance, they go to war verbally too
So if we find [and it can be done] alternative fuel to petroleum ones what happens to millions of service stations
The economy of the middle east [and those who own that oil]
I strongly feel the campaign is hooking its supporters and in the end they do not understand they have purchased a pup

Dear Belly,

I don't waste my time looking at the so-called evidence presented by those refuting anthropogenic global warming and its consequential climate change. If they don't want to accept it then let them go down that path. I see them as ignorant and uneducated.

That's why I go to such lengths to mock them. They are complete fools and idiots. Every age and culture has its group of fools. In our modern world and global civilisation it just happens to be made up of people like Hasbeen, mhaze, Loudmouth, individual, etc.

I spent half my life building myself into one of the most educated guys in the country and I refuse to waste my time trying to convince a bunch of knuckleheads that AGW is real and dangerous to our planet and our species. I've got better things to do with my time.

"NASA on the 30 year rule (for lurkers)."

Nasa says..."Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years."

Some scientists say 30. Some 40. Some just say an extended time. Some don't say at all. But for Max, since it suits his purpose just now, its firm law. Oh dear.

Just to clarify..Max originally claimed "But our CO2 and methane ARE the dominant forcings we are aware of on our planet." I showed him two of the vast array of instances and periods where that is simply untrue. Not sorta true, or arguable true, but just plain wrong. And Max's response? Well he's spent who knows how many posts trying to obfuscate the issue. My favourite was when he went into a moral-panic over the word 'homogenise', a word used often from organisations like NASA through to IPCC, but which, somehow, is proof positive of the user being denier.

So just to try again....was "CO2 and methane" the dominant forcings in those periods I mentioned? were they the dominant forcings during the mid-century cooling? In fact periods where there have been a correlation between rising CO2 and rising temps are rather small in the great scheme of things.

Then Max panics over all those A-bombs going off in the climate. Hilariously he fails to understand that that is the equivalent of 0.6 watts /sqm which is the usual non-alarmist way of measuring. Or 0.4% of the amount of energy received each second from the sun. But alarmist gotta alarm,....and be alarmed.