Max cannot accept there are different scientific opinions to his with:"have decided you're smarter than every National Academy of Science on the planet."

Max it is not us bogans you are arguing against the fact is there are scientists on the other side who see minimal effect causes of CO2 on the Climate created by fossil fuels. There are factors other than coal, gas and petroleum that pollute the atmosphere. Try chlorine, methane and burning wood as a sample. How much CO2 has been put into the atmosphere by the present fires

Mr G, again it's YOU who are trying too hard a sell.
There is NO consensus on anything, their are the scientists against and those fore.
There is no one opinion even amongst the experts, so stop mouthing off as if only you have the answers and only your opinion is correct.
It's arrogant neanderthals like you who deny the existence of any evidence that might contradict your twisted and vial attiude that you are better than everyone else.
Well smart-arse, you have finally been weighed, measured, and found wanting.
I'll bet you scoffed at my suggestion to look up the video Josephus has so kindly linked to on page 27.
It is clear and unambiguous.
It is an interview with the guy who started all this CO2 hoo-haa, 40 years ago (approx).
So before you boorish, arrogant little man say anything else, look at it, then TRY and explain your mantra after that.
At the very least, tone it down, I believe I was the least favorite person on OLO, then there was SR, and he's about on a par with you, but now, you can carry on with pride, in the knowledge that you are now at the top of that much revered pile of cow pats.

Josephus said; "as bitumen is a biproduct of coal" then ran away and googled it.

Any 2nd year high school science student knows bitumen comes from crude oil, apparently Josephus didn't know that, he doesn't even have the level of science knowledge of a 13 year old. Shameful, with his primary school grasps of science he wants to debate with Mr O who knows the subject to the university level.

Father Joe, stick to the biblical BS, its more your calling.

Max Green descends to name-calling very quickly when he doesn't get his own way. Just another Leftist thug we don't have to bother with.

Hey Max Green,

"That one word NATURALLY means you just dismiss the ANTHROPOGENIC causes of climate change. It's all just natural, see? The climate's changed before, see? You're a piss-ant little cliche, see?

I love the wiki on climate deniers, but just wish there was a new, stronger term. Like Denial-tards! That sounds about right. Denial-tards."

The question is 'does his argument have a basis of merit?
- Has the climate changed before, or hasn't it?

Lets look at the issue surrounding the existence of the Piri Reis Maps.
It's clear that the coastline of Antarctica has previously been mapped by humans prior to the current ice levels.
It's also known that the whole northern portion of Africa turned to desert over a relatively short period 500 - 1000 years.
Did humans play a part in this? I don't know.

Some say the ancient city of Atlantis is 'The Eye of Africa' right there in plain sight.
But in that story, the city was destroyed overnight, as the seas poured in.

The important point here is that humans have had to adapt and climate and master their own environment for millennia in order to survive, and in this respect nothings actually changing at all.

I hate the climate change 'agenda', but I'm all for practical improvements that are in the nations best interests.

Give me practical, reasonable and viable ideas that don't have a negative or detrimental impact on the nations jobs and economy, and I'll support them.

Instead what you want to do is through fuel on a divisive issue that has resulted in the entire planet being at each others throats.

- I don't want no part of this -

Just give me practical, reasonable and viable ideas or else I don't care about any of your agenda, whether there's a basis for a changing climate or not.

ALTRAV,
>"By 'one of us', I mean he sounds too familiar and knowledgeable about this topic, on a higher than domestic or social level."

That's just so interesting, and so sad! Guys, I don't think you understand. I hardly know any of this stuff. Climate science is HARD, and I only know about 2% of it. I’m not a scientist. I caught a bad case of “the humanities” in my education.

But the Denier arguments here are truly pathetic. At least MHAZE had me looking up IPCC definitions and reports. That debate was INTERESTING, even if MHAZE totally embarrassed himself at the end. I’ve been in other forums where real scientists were really sophisticated Deniers. I’ve struggled to answer their objections and had to go to other real climate scientists to get the answers. But you guys are cardboard cut-outs of climate deniers. You keep repeating BORING old mantra's like:-

>"The climate's changed before, y'all!"

I mean, DER! OF COURSE IT FRIGGIN HAS! The IPCC bases the essential CLIMATE SENSITIVITY MULTIPLIER ON THIS *SCIENTIFIC FACT*. Rather than being some weird “Inconvenient Truth” some climatologists overlooked, paleoclimate is the FOUNDANTIONAL SCIENCE essential to understanding how this complex planet interacts with increased CO2.

Or what about:-
>"There were these Ice Ages, y'all!"

DER AGAIN! They KNOW that! They KNOW what causes it. Does the Denier?
It’s wobbles in the Earth’s orbit affecting incoming sunlight. But there’s a problem. The changes in sunlight are not enough to explain all the temperature changes. It turns out CO2 causes 40% of the temperature changes in an ice age. As ice expands, carbon in tundra and permafrost gets trapped and plunges the temperature down further. As it melts at the end of an Ice Age, CO2 is released and raises the temperature another 40%. (See the 2nd paragraph, column 2 of page 144).
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1990_Lorius_etal.pdf

With the Ice Ages, the trigger is natural variation in the Earth’s wobbles. But CO2 played a scary part of the extremes!

With today, WE are the trigger releasing CO2. Different trigger, same effect. WARMING!