In the previous post I did not mention the objection from a poster
on here that could not accept the .01c rise due to human activity.
In the article by the Finns they explain that the IPCC models do not
take into account the effect of clouds and presume it is part of the
human activity co2.
This struck a cord with me when I heard Ian Plimer make a statement;
"Imagine a box with 80,000 co2 molecules in it. Then you add one more.
Would you expect it to make a noticeable difference ?".

We have all heard the arguments about 96% natural co2 and 4% human co2.
Then Aus produces 1.4% of 4% etc etc so what the hell !
Some 100,000 underwater volcanoes, many surface volcanoes spewing
out co2 all day every day.
Can human co2 hold a candle to that ? Sorry pun intended !
To stir it further; I will follow the science !

ps It is just so much more likely that the present warming is just
another cycle in an age old cycle.
It does upset a lot of Gretas.

Bazz,

Why don't you have a go?

Let's see if you can define a probable cause of global warming over the past 240 years. Make sure it's in your own words and you provide an explanation in just a few lines. Please do not waffle on in your usual way throwing up red herrings and referring people to articles that you yourself cannot understand.

If that doesn't interest you then we will just accept that you concur with the burning of fossil fuels as being the only probable cause.

Bazz, hear, hear, finally a quick and focused summary of the GW, CC fallacy.
I hope this satisfies those who keep banging on about this bloody catastrophe we are about to endure, leading to the end of the world, as we know it.
Now what I would like to see is some of the GW, CC backers, to start looking into some of the people and claims they promote.
Such as that arrogant little maggot I swore never to mention again, but even I have to suck it up, in the interest of truth.
Just researching her and her mob of deviants will raise eyebrows, and give people a totally new perspective and view about much more than some stupid, arrogant, mentally and emotionally dis-functional, CHILD!
Go on I dare you.
I did and feel a whole lot better and vindicated for it.

The stupidity of indoctrination is boundless !

Mr O, Bazz just did answer you, and more, so you can give it a rest now.
This is not a pissing contest forum, it's not about who can stick it to whom.
It is about people interacting, and for me it's about discussing the truth, NOT opinions, which unfortunately the creators of this medium stuffed up big time.
Opinions are just random comments which at their worst are equivalent to the ramblings of someone institutionalised, as they are not speaking with a full deck, and their utterings are completely of their own creation with no cognisant input, or this case, no truthfull input, at best just facts.
Facts as we know are one of the main components of opinions, because they can be arranged to tell whatever story the commentor wishes.
In the case of opinions, it is the same.
If the "opinion" is a repeat of a truth, then it is not an opinion.
It is a comment, because it was based on a truth.
Now someone making a personal and unproven observation about the same comment, is espousing an, OPINION!
So Mr O, I believe Bazz is due to be commended for his quick and precis explanation of the questions you ask.
Well done Bazz!

Still not a single useful idiot with anything to say about the failed ridiculous predictions.

Come on fellers, why haven't all those crazy predictions not come to pass.

Just like the garbage from silly teen ages & the Mr Os of this world, all garbage, & proven so.