Oh dear oh dear.

ALTRAV,

weren't you just saying you didn't believe climate science because the climate had changed before? As in, before our industrial processes?

Just dumped that one and decided to whine about stock shots of cooling towers, did we?

Another denier that doesn't debate, but just rotates through their anti-climate memes.

TRUTH vs FACTS. Sorry bud, I have both on my side! It's called the empirical method of the scientific process, and while there are still some small margins of ambiguity being studied, the overall picture is clear. If you want to show me where the scientific "FACTS" are somehow disguising the "TRUTH" in relation to how the IPCC HAS STUDIED THE DEEP CLIMATE PAST and already KNOWS HEAPS ABOUT IT, then please, be my guest. That might be an interesting debate.

But if you're just here to rotate through whatever random anti-climate memes you've got jammed in your head, then go away. I'm so bored of deniers just rotating through their dumb assertions without staying around to deal with the wreckage of their last assertion.

Oh, and stock footage of cooling towers? Gotta have something to show since CO2 is INVISIBLE! (Slaps hand to forehead.)

Max, you have me mixed up with someone else, I don't engage in FACTS, because I don't know what they mean until they are placed in their proper order and form a statement with a discernible and provable and actual conclusion, and not a collection of data, which when interacted under laboratory or out of place conditions prove what was sought and thought or intended, in the first place.
You have also adopted the ability to deflect I see.
Let me concur and confirm my point against you and your lot, and that is;
Of course CO2 is invisible, so why then do your brethren keep showing these and other false hoods?
Because you either cannot find a truth in your argument or you have no truth to demonstrate your stance, just a lot of facts.
So far you have only demonstrated that you have only the facts on your side, not the truth.
If all this is for real then why aren't 100% of scientists on board?
Why aren't things that challenge and sometimes debunk all this mentioned, such as the subterranean hot spot beneath the North Pole causing the change in water temperature.
The same water that flows South causing some curious results in the region, which have been sold as part of GW or CC.
NO, Max, I'm sorry I am not falling for your or anyone else's con.
I refute the facts and keep piecing them together in my continuing search for the truth.
It is difficult, because those who instigated this huge fallacy, are not stupid as they have taken completely natural occurrences of the Earth and re-arranged the facts to produce and promote a self serving preconceived, agenda.
They have been responsible for all the major catastrophes of humanity for many decades now.
They will never be exposed because they have too much wealth and therefore ensure they remain anonymous.

Oh dear, another one detailed to muddy the waters of OLO. And I was silly enough to try to answer Max Green with an intelligent reasoned post on another thread, before he unmasked himself.

I am not going to comment on the cause of climate change because I’m not qualified to do so. What I can respond to is comments about the starvation due to loss of agricultural land.
Does it not occur to people that if some land is lost to farmers due to excessive heat, doesn’t that also mean that huge areas of land previously too cold for crops would then be usable for growing food?,
Think of all the land across the top of Europe and North America Canada and Alaska that currently is not suitable for crops but could be if the temperature increases. Why, Greenland would go back to the lush green island that gave it that name when discovered during a previous warming period.
In addition, with the scientific abilities we now have, I’m sure someone would be able to generate crops that can grow in very hot areas.
Humans are very adaptable, as are animals.

Agree Max. Nuclear is the only viable low carbon energy source currently. The next step is to test the viability of modular reactors. Solar and electric vehicles will get a boost if a low cost rechargeable battery technology is developed, but none of these things will make a jot of difference to the weather for the foreseeable future, even if you give credence to the predictions.

Geoengineering needs to be tested. Creating algal blooms may be a means of increasing ocean surface temperatures and may allow a means of altering weather patterns.

Cheers

IT IS THE SUN STUPID !
Just landed on this thread and went to the trouble of reading all the
previous posts.
It started by asking why the temperature has been rising for 240 years.
Good period to ask as that was in the Maunder Minimum.
The temperature has been rising since then and if you read
Jyrki Kauppinen and Pekka Maimi of Turku University in Finland and
Masayuki Hyodo of Kobe University in Japan you will find the answer there.
Now the interesting bit is they believe it has just peaked somewhere
around 1995 but as it is about a 300 year cycle it probably has a flat
top of perhaps 50 years.
It is a real case of cycles within cycles.
1. The suns normal radiation variation cycle,
2. The 11 year sunspot cycle.
3. The variation in the maximum sunspot at peak of the 11 year cycle
4. The variation in the minimum sunspot at minimum of the 11 year cycle.
5. The Milanovitch cycle of the earths rotation around the sun.

This causes the earths magnetic field to vary and affect cosmic rays
entering the atmosphere, where when there are more getting through it
they cause more cloud cover.
More cloud cover means more shading of the earth and more radiation
from the sun being reflected back into space and so cooling the earth.
These scientists believe that man made global heating is responsible
for only 0.01 deg C.

Their papers are a development of previously published work by the
Norwegian scientist Mark Svenmark & others some years previously.

Looking at the warm periods over the last 2000 years will put it all
into a quite different perspective.
We can expect the next cold period in 300 years time.