placeholder

Playing with the multiple meanings of "fixed" may be your idea of the basis for a rational scientific discussion, but it's clearly irrelevant to how science actually gets done. However, to a conspiracy theorist such as yourself, it probably is their idea of how science gets done.

Well, when people start touting conspiracy theories, I don't think labelling them is out of line? Of course, if you subscribe to conspiracy theories, then you'll probably disagree.

Modern Climate Change Is the Only Worldwide Warming Event of the Past 2,000 Years New research finds that previous periods of warming and cooling driven by natural causes were regional shifts in temperature rather than global events https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/modern-climate-change-only-worldwide-warming-event-past-2000-years-180972719/ No evidence for globally coherent warm and cold periods over the preindustrial Common Era https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1401-2.epdf? Consistent multidecadal variability in global temperature reconstructions and simulations over the Common Era https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-019-0400-0.epdf?

Thanks for missing my point. Your quarrel is with the bigot who posted this:

You think that's bad? There's some deluded bloke named Rishi Sunak who thinks he's British enough to be PM. Go figure.

It shows.

Looks like Musk drew the short straw Twitter, Elon Musk, and the 'pleasant, unassuming' Delaware judge who may force him to pay tens of billions of dollars Kathaleen McCormick will be the judge in Twitter v Elon Musk lawsuit. Columbia Law professor Eric Talley said her record of siding with sellers was bad news for Musk. The Delaware Chancery Court's focus on optics was also bad news for the Tesla CEO, Talley said. https://www.businessinsider.com/judge-in-twitter-elon-musk-trial-could-be-musk-nightmare-2022-7

I realize that they are both would-be explanations. I also recognize that they contradict each other.

Do you think Trump's accusations are really a cry for help? That he wants to be arrested? I offer this in support of that thesis: Trump called a top Wisconsin election official last week urging him to decertify Biden's 2020 election win in the state — in the midst of the January 6 hearings into the former president's efforts to overturn the election The Wisconsin Assembly Speaker said Trump urged him to decertify Biden's win earlier this month. Robin Vos told WISN-TV 12 News that Trump raised the topic following a state Supreme Court ruling on ballot boxes. When Vos refused, Trump took to social media to slam the election official. https://news.yahoo.com/trump-called-top-wisconsin-election-014425625.html

On the one hand you claim that "The world has always gone through cycles of cooling and warming." On the other "The sun is hot so you would expect warming of the earth." Make up your mind.

Well, since China and India have only recently industrialized, most of the increase in CO2 is due to nations that developed earlier.

The eleven year solar cycle was very weakly correlated with temperature up until about 1975. At that point something stronger overwhelmed that correlation. Namely, the forcing effect of greenhouse gases.

You may be clever enough for that. But are you clever enough to understand that instrumentation keeps on improving? Or do you believe that progress stopped after the invention of the magnifying glass?

Well, solar and wind already are cheaper than coal. Even back when the price of coal was depressed. And when gas prices were low, batteries were already cheaper than gas peaker plants. At current prices for natural gas, solar and wind are cheaper. It's also useful to point out that fossil fuels are highly subsidized. About 6% if global GDP. Most of that subsidy comes in the form of health care costs born by others.

Not with current policies, they won't.

Really? Does that mean when you alight on foreign soil, you can't breathe? Or are you now claiming that there's some sort of global conspiracy in reporting the weather so you only believe in the weather where you live? And given that Britain is about 200,000 square kilometers. how do you manage to live in the entire place?

Who needs cleverness when you've got cluelessness?

I guess when you've got nothing, why not propose a massive scientific conspiracy?

You and BritmanToo should launch a Planet UK website.

I've forgotten if it was you or someone who posted that because grapes grew in Britain once upon a time, that means that global warming isn't real. What don't you understand about the fact that Britain is not the entire world. The surface of Britain covers 209,331 square miles. The surface of land on Earth comes to about 150,000,000 square kilometers. The Earth as a whole has about 500,000,000 square kilometers of surface. So the UK holds about .14% of land surface. And from this tiny sample you draw conclusions?

"One can only guess at the pollution numbers from these two, and will they do anything about it, nooooooo." Time to brush up on your command of both facts and English What the 2021 China Wind Power Boom Means for the World Wind power in China is booming, according to data from last year. Offshore wind saw a 16.9 gigawatt (GW) increase in capacity, greater than every other country combined in the past five years. On top of that, China brought online an extra 30.67 GW of onshore wind energy. https://energytracker.asia/what-the-2021-china-wind-power-boom-means-for-the-world/ India Installed A Record 10GW Solar Power This Year, 210% Rise From 2020 https://www.indiatimes.com/news/india/india-installed-10gw-solar-power-in-2021-568900.html As for your "philosophical ruminations... "Our Earth has always been its own boss, it does what it has too..." are you competing to be the world's next leading New Age Guru? You've definitely got the BS patter down.

You offer no explanation, just an assertion. Which is not surprising, since you clearly don't understand that there's a difference in meaning between "increased solar activity" and "solar activity".

Data is hard; pictures are easy.

When over 99% of research papers reflect a research consensus, maybe it's time you learned what's the difference between a "conjecture" and a scientific theory. Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

You know this? Please share with us the source of your knowledge.