Ignore Pope on climate, says US Republican Marsha Blackburn

[thaibeachlovers]

We are all still waiting, waiting, waiting for your scientific community to come up with a viable plan to reverse the effects of GW. Given that they have not, and do not even look like coming up with a plan I'm pickin' that they have no solutions that would work.

NB windmills, solar panels and extra taxes will not solve the problem.

PS Given that not one of them points to overpopulation as the major cause of GW I scorn them.

Correct a mill to grind grain driven by wind will not solve the GW / CC problem.

So solar power and taxes are excluded what are the solutions you have seen that would be effective.

What mechanisms can be put in place to address overpopulation?

I don't know that any manmade solutions would work because it hasn't been proven to my satisfaction that humans caused it. However, if caused by human pollution, eliminating the private car in cities and stopping non essential air travel would be a start. Not easy or popular, but they do say we will all die if nothing is done, so giving up the car and air holidays would seem a small price to pay. Good public transport and fast electric trains ( powered by nuclear power stations ) would be a satisfactory substitute.

As for population control, not paying anyone to have children would be a start, as well as banning all artificial insemination or other aids to reproduction. If one can't have a child, tough.

I'd like to add mandatory sterilisation of all women after one child, but that would be a tough sell.

[thaibeachlovers]

Why don't I just ask you? You wish to be seen as some kind of climate expert.

Up2U2, has the climate frequently changed over the course of Earth's history?

Because I am not the one making the statements you are:

".......The temperature record is what it is. Not many people are in a position to argue the basic statistics, particularly the ancient ones. The record says the climate constantly changes. but to say the change is now in the hands of humans is something altogether different and a case that has been to be difficult to prove. Despite the unprecedented leverage by the various interest groups....."

What 'temperature record'? what 'basic statistics'? what 'record says the climate constantly changes'?

Who is saying 'the change is now in the hands of humans' and why is it 'altogether different' and 'difficult to prove'?

If you make these statements they must be based on something. Surely?

Who is saying 'the change is now in the hands of humans'

YOU.

You have been telling us G W is caused by humans, ergo the change is caused by humans, ergo the change is in the hands of humans.

[sirineou]

Ignore Pope on climate, says US Republican Marsha Blackburn, only obey when he says something that supports my agenda,

otherwise you will burn in hell,

anything else he says is rubbish and should be ignored

[up2u2]

Because I am not the one making the statements you are:

".......The temperature record is what it is. Not many people are in a position to argue the basic statistics, particularly the ancient ones. The record says the climate constantly changes. but to say the change is now in the hands of humans is something altogether different and a case that has been to be difficult to prove. Despite the unprecedented leverage by the various interest groups....."

What 'temperature record'? what 'basic statistics'? what 'record says the climate constantly changes'?

Who is saying 'the change is now in the hands of humans' and why is it 'altogether different' and 'difficult to prove'?

If you make these statements they must be based on something. Surely?

From a five second search on Google, a Wikipedia snippet. Not that Wiki is a reliable source, but let's move this along and see what cunning plan you are baiting me into. Could it be that once I accept anything scientific, then I must accept everything from the same source?

From Wikipedia:

On longer time scales, sediment cores show that the cycles of glacials and interglacials are part of a deepening phase within a prolonged ice age that began with the glaciation of Antarctica approximately 40 million years ago. This deepening phase, and the accompanying cycles, largely began approximately 3 million years ago with the growth of continental ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere. Gradual changes in Earth's climate of this kind have been frequent during the Earth's 4500 million year existence and most often are attributed to changes in the configuration of continents and ocean sea ways.

Oh so you just looked this up but you made this statement before:

".......The temperature record is what it is. Not many people are in a position to argue the basic statistics, particularly the ancient ones. The record says the climate constantly changes. but to say the change is now in the hands of humans is something altogether different and a case that has been to be difficult to prove. Despite the unprecedented leverage by the various interest groups....."

What did you base these statements on?

This is data from the Vostok Ice Core in Antarctica.

[up2u2]

Who is saying 'the change is now in the hands of humans'

YOU.

You have been telling us G W is caused by humans, ergo the change is caused by humans, ergo the change is in the hands of humans.

I haven't been telling anyone anything. Canuk made that statement.

[canuckamuck]

Because I am not the one making the statements you are:

".......The temperature record is what it is. Not many people are in a position to argue the basic statistics, particularly the ancient ones. The record says the climate constantly changes. but to say the change is now in the hands of humans is something altogether different and a case that has been to be difficult to prove. Despite the unprecedented leverage by the various interest groups....."

What 'temperature record'? what 'basic statistics'? what 'record says the climate constantly changes'?

Who is saying 'the change is now in the hands of humans' and why is it 'altogether different' and 'difficult to prove'?

If you make these statements they must be based on something. Surely?

From a five second search on Google, a Wikipedia snippet. Not that Wiki is a reliable source, but let's move this along and see what cunning plan you are baiting me into. Could it be that once I accept anything scientific, then I must accept everything from the same source?

From Wikipedia:

On longer time scales, sediment cores show that the cycles of glacials and interglacials are part of a deepening phase within a prolonged ice age that began with the glaciation of Antarctica approximately 40 million years ago. This deepening phase, and the accompanying cycles, largely began approximately 3 million years ago with the growth of continental ice sheets in the Northern Hemisphere. Gradual changes in Earth's climate of this kind have been frequent during the Earth's 4500 million year existence and most often are attributed to changes in the configuration of continents and ocean sea ways.

Oh so you just looked this up but you made this statement before:

".......The temperature record is what it is. Not many people are in a position to argue the basic statistics, particularly the ancient ones. The record says the climate constantly changes. but to say the change is now in the hands of humans is something altogether different and a case that has been to be difficult to prove. Despite the unprecedented leverage by the various interest groups....."

What did you base these statements on?

This is data from the Vostok Ice Core in Antarctica.

Do you have some evidence of some competing global temperature records? Because if you haven't then perhaps you should come to your point. I have not seen contradictory temperature records myself so I am confident in my statement that the record is what it is.

[sirineou]

I could Google Global warming, copy and paste graphs and articles that support my position and the opposing side could do the same but what would this accomplish?

I ;listen to and read various news media outlets, but if really want to know what is going on in the world, I listen to financial news, their only agenda is the bottom line, and nonsense does not fly.

If you really want to know if GW is occurring , Google " insurance global Warming" and see what the insurance industries take is on the subject

they are the once who will bare a lot of the cost and they have done the research necessary.

[RickBradford]

I could Google Global warming, copy and paste graphs and articles that support my position and the opposing side could do the same but what would this accomplish?

Nothing.

Whether you think climate science is BS or not, it has been accompanied by more BS from politicians who talk big and deliver nothing substantive. The mainstream climate movement is a perfect demonstration of the confluence of two inherent components of the human condition: incompetence and self-interest.

Over 120 countries have now submitted their "pledges" to the supposedly crucial Paris climate talks in 3 weeks time and no country has done anything which remotely resembles serious action on climate (assuming you believe the simplistic notion that CO2 acts like a thermostat, i.e. cut the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere = reduce temperature).

That tells us that the political debate is settled. No action is going to be taken that will come near to meeting the demands of the doomsayers.

So if you believe the alarmist science, now is the time to start applying for that Russian migration visa -- Yakutsk would be a good spot.

[up2u2]

Oh so you just looked this up but you made this statement before:

".......The temperature record is what it is. Not many people are in a position to argue the basic statistics, particularly the ancient ones. The record says the climate constantly changes. but to say the change is now in the hands of humans is something altogether different and a case that has been to be difficult to prove. Despite the unprecedented leverage by the various interest groups....."

What did you base these statements on?

This is data from the Vostok Ice Core in Antarctica.

Do you have some evidence of some competing global temperature records? Because if you haven't then perhaps you should come to your point. I have not seen contradictory temperature records myself so I am confident in my statement that the record is what it is.

That isn't a global temperature record. It is the data from the Vostok Ice Core in Antarctica. It shows the delta temperature trend anomaly in ^OC. So is that the first time you have actually looked at the science on GW / CC? What other sources do you have prior to a 5 second search on Google that formed the view on the statements you made?

[canuckamuck]

The 5 seconds was all your question was worth. It does not represent anything more. Everyone who read my comment knew my meaning. If you heard some climate change profiteer talking about temperatures from a million years ago. Would you stop him and tell him we only have the temperature trend. Not the actual record?

There is very little disagreement about prehistorical temperature estimations. What you are trying to do is build another straw man based on either the terms I chose or the amount of Information you think I have available.

[thaibeachlovers]

Who is saying 'the change is now in the hands of humans'

YOU.

You have been telling us G W is caused by humans, ergo the change is caused by humans, ergo the change is in the hands of humans.

I haven't been telling anyone anything. Canuk made that statement.

You said in # 176

As someone who accepts the scientific evidence of GW / CC I would hope the silence is absolutely deafening on this absurd suggestion.

Are you now trying to tell me that you don't believe that it is caused by humans when all your posts imply that it is?

[thaibeachlovers]

I could Google Global warming, copy and paste graphs and articles that support my position and the opposing side could do the same but what would this accomplish?

I ;listen to and read various news media outlets, but if really want to know what is going on in the world, I listen to financial news, their only agenda is the bottom line, and nonsense does not fly.

If you really want to know if GW is occurring , Google " insurance global Warming" and see what the insurance industries take is on the subject

they are the once who will bare a lot of the cost and they have done the research necessary.

There is no doubt that climate change IS occurring, and the temperature IS rising ( has varied for millions of years and is absolutely normal to expect changes ) but there is nothing to prove beyond self interest and political grandstanding that it is caused by humans or that there is anything humans can do to stop/ reverse it.

[up2u2]

Who is saying 'the change is now in the hands of humans'

YOU.

You have been telling us G W is caused by humans, ergo the change is caused by humans, ergo the change is in the hands of humans.

I haven't been telling anyone anything. Canuk made that statement.

You said in # 176

As someone who accepts !the scientific evidence! of GW / CC I would hope the silence is absolutely deafening on this absurd suggestion.

Are you now trying to tell me that you don't believe that it is caused by humans when all your posts imply that it is?

Your killing me tbl. Here I am not 'telling' you or anyone anything other than my firmly held view and what precisely that view is based on. In the case of GW / CC it is based on actual peer reviewed scientific evidence and scientific evidence that I have actually read.

If I was to make the statement: Man made Global Warming leading to Climate Change is a fact, full stop, end of story I would expect to be challenged. What do you base that statement on?

You will notice throughout this ENTIRE thread the posters who reject GW / CC, such as yourself, NEVER refer to the science of GW / CC. They stick rigidly to political and ideological statements that do not have any scientific research that agrees with that political ideology. Fact is when you look at the science it shows the exact opposite of the statements they make.

If you want to truly and honestly debate GW / CC you MUST!!! debate the peer reviewed science because without it there is no GW / CC and that requires a person to actually read and have a basic understanding of the science on GW / CC.

I promise you until I pressured Canuk he had never come anywhere near the actual science on GW / CC. He is just parroting what he has read on Climate Denier blogsites, Right Wing Conservative 'Institutions and 'Foundations' funded by the Fossil Fuel Industry, Rupert Murdoch's Fox News. None of which have the remotest connection to the peer reviewed scientific evidence on GW / CC.

I do use the term 'Climate Denier' because to not accept GW / CC you must deny an avalanche of scientific evidence to arrive at that conclusion.

[up2u2]

I could Google Global warming, copy and paste graphs and articles that support my position and the opposing side could do the same but what would this accomplish?

I ;listen to and read various news media outlets, but if really want to know what is going on in the world, I listen to financial news, their only agenda is the bottom line, and nonsense does not fly.

If you really want to know if GW is occurring , Google " insurance global Warming" and see what the insurance industries take is on the subject

they are the once who will bare a lot of the cost and they have done the research necessary.

There is no doubt that climate change IS occurring, and the temperature IS rising ( has varied for millions of years and is absolutely normal to expect changes ) but there is nothing to prove beyond self interest and political grandstanding that it is caused by humans or that there is anything humans can do to stop/ reverse it.

So what scientific evidence do you base that on? Or is that just a political ideological point of view? What scientific evidence on GW / CC do you disagree with? Where is that scientific evidence flawed? You do agree on the scientific evidence that Climates have changed in the past. Post ONE link to a peer reviewed scientific Paper / Research / Article that supports your view that the current GW and resulting CC is simply natural variability? Post ONE peer reviewed scientific Paper / Research / Article that explains the current rise in Global Temperatures and what is causing it. It is easy to make statements a totally different thing to present scientific evidence that demonstrates your opinion has merit.

[canuckamuck]

Your killing me tbl. Here I am not 'telling' you or anyone anything other than my firmly held view and what precisely that view is based on. In the case of GW / CC it is based on actual peer reviewed scientific evidence and scientific evidence that I have actually read.

If I was to make the statement: Man made Global Warming leading to Climate Change is a fact, full stop, end of story I would expect to be challenged. What do you base that statement on?

You will notice throughout this ENTIRE thread the posters who reject GW / CC, such as yourself, NEVER refer to the science of GW / CC. They stick rigidly to political and ideological statements that do not have any scientific research that agrees with that political ideology. Fact is when you look at the science it shows the exact opposite of the statements they make.

If you want to truly and honestly debate GW / CC you MUST!!! debate the peer reviewed science because without it there is no GW / CC and that requires a person to actually read and have a basic understanding of the science on GW / CC.

I promise you until I pressured Canuk he had never come anywhere near the actual science on GW / CC. He is just parroting what he has read on Climate Denier blogsites, Right Wing Conservative 'Institutions and 'Foundations' funded by the Fossil Fuel Industry, Rupert Murdoch's Fox News. None of which have the remotest connection to the peer reviewed scientific evidence on GW / CC.

I do use the term 'Climate Denier' because to not accept GW / CC you must deny an avalanche of scientific evidence to arrive at that conclusion.

Is there really blog sites where people deny there is a climate?

As far as parroting goes, why don't you post that climate denial 101 clip for the 50th time?

I bet you got the skeptical science site bookmarked as porn.

[eliotness]

555 I bet he's never even seen it. ???

Edited October 12, 2015 by eliotness

[up2u2]

Your killing me tbl. Here I am not 'telling' you or anyone anything other than my firmly held view and what precisely that view is based on. In the case of GW / CC it is based on actual peer reviewed scientific evidence and scientific evidence that I have actually read.

If I was to make the statement: Man made Global Warming leading to Climate Change is a fact, full stop, end of story I would expect to be challenged. What do you base that statement on?

You will notice throughout this ENTIRE thread the posters who reject GW / CC, such as yourself, NEVER refer to the science of GW / CC. They stick rigidly to political and ideological statements that do not have any scientific research that agrees with that political ideology. Fact is when you look at the science it shows the exact opposite of the statements they make.

If you want to truly and honestly debate GW / CC you MUST!!! debate the peer reviewed science because without it there is no GW / CC and that requires a person to actually read and have a basic understanding of the science on GW / CC.

I promise you until I pressured Canuk he had never come anywhere near the actual science on GW / CC. He is just parroting what he has read on Climate Denier blogsites, Right Wing Conservative 'Institutions and 'Foundations' funded by the Fossil Fuel Industry, Rupert Murdoch's Fox News. None of which have the remotest connection to the peer reviewed scientific evidence on GW / CC.

I do use the term 'Climate Denier' because to not accept GW / CC you must deny an avalanche of scientific evidence to arrive at that conclusion.

Is there really blog sites where people deny there is a climate?

As far as parroting goes, why don't you post that climate denial 101 clip for the 50th time?

I bet you got the skeptical science site bookmarked as porn.

It would not surprise me if there were blog sites that deny there is a climate. I haven't come across any but I am sure there probably is.

Denial 101 is an EXCELLENT!!! youtube series on the science of Global Warming and Climate Change. I would recommend it to anyone who wanted to learn about the science on GW / CC. The key ingredient is it focuses on the actual science and how it relates to GW / CC and is easy to understand for people who don't have a science background.

Skeptical Science is a brilliant website. It has won the Eureka Award for innovation in science communication. The people who administer the site are actual scientists involved in publishing world recognised Climate Science. It can relate to any level of science education from basic, intermediate and advanced. It is of course science based and always provides links to the actual peer reviewed scientific research it comments on. An excellent resourse probably the best. It also keeps you up to date with what's happening in GW / CC.

If you are politically and ideologically opposed to the science on GW / CC you will absolutely hate both but if you have an enquiring mind and an interest is science BRILLIANT!!!!!!

Oh, definitely no porn on either site. You may have to open that up another window for that.

[thaibeachlovers]

I could Google Global warming, copy and paste graphs and articles that support my position and the opposing side could do the same but what would this accomplish?

I ;listen to and read various news media outlets, but if really want to know what is going on in the world, I listen to financial news, their only agenda is the bottom line, and nonsense does not fly.

If you really want to know if GW is occurring , Google " insurance global Warming" and see what the insurance industries take is on the subject

they are the once who will bare a lot of the cost and they have done the research necessary.

There is no doubt that climate change IS occurring, and the temperature IS rising ( has varied for millions of years and is absolutely normal to expect changes ) but there is nothing to prove beyond self interest and political grandstanding that it is caused by humans or that there is anything humans can do to stop/ reverse it.

So what scientific evidence do you base that on? Or is that just a political ideological point of view? What scientific evidence on GW / CC do you disagree with? Where is that scientific evidence flawed? You do agree on the scientific evidence that Climates have changed in the past. Post ONE link to a peer reviewed scientific Paper / Research / Article that supports your view that the current GW and resulting CC is simply natural variability? Post ONE peer reviewed scientific Paper / Research / Article that explains the current rise in Global Temperatures and what is causing it. It is easy to make statements a totally different thing to present scientific evidence that demonstrates your opinion has merit.

?????? This thread and others like it are about non man made C C vs man made C C. If you believe the scientific evidence that climate change is occurring, but have no view on whether it is man made or not, you agree with me. If you believe it is man made why not admit it?

Either way, there is no rational plan to change/ reverse C C and you have not pointed to any evidence that there is.

There can be a million scientists agree that C C is man made, but without a plan to reverse/ stop it, they are just blowing hot air.

[Linky]

Apologies in advance if this has been asked and answered.

What is Marsha Blackburn's credentials to instruct people to diregard the Pope on climate change?

The evidence is in, from hundreds of the world's top scientists after studying thousnds of pages of evidence. Climate change is real and man made climate change is real.

All this nonsense from some has already been considered and a dtermination made. Throw your toys out of the pram as much as you like. Its done, decided, verdict given. Tough.

[RickBradford]

Skeptical Science is a brilliant website.

If you like unintentional comedy and self-parody, certainly.

Cawley et al (2014) was worth the entrance money alone for mirth.

[thaibeachlovers]

Apologies in advance if this has been asked and answered.

What is Marsha Blackburn's credentials to instruct people to diregard the Pope on climate change?

The evidence is in, from hundreds of the world's top scientists after studying thousnds of pages of evidence. Climate change is real and man made climate change is real.

All this nonsense from some has already been considered and a dtermination made. Throw your toys out of the pram as much as you like. Its done, decided, verdict given. Tough.

Still waiting for a solution to the done science that C C is man made. Could it be that there are none?

Indeed, I, a non believer have suggested more solutions than the pro side. In fact, the silence from the pro side on solutions is deafening.

[thaibeachlovers]

Who is saying 'the change is now in the hands of humans'

YOU.

You have been telling us G W is caused by humans, ergo the change is caused by humans, ergo the change is in the hands of humans.

I haven't been telling anyone anything. Canuk made that statement.

You said in # 176

As someone who accepts !the scientific evidence! of GW / CC I would hope the silence is absolutely deafening on this absurd suggestion.

Are you now trying to tell me that you don't believe that it is caused by humans when all your posts imply that it is?

Your killing me tbl. Here I am not 'telling' you or anyone anything other than my firmly held view and what precisely that view is based on. In the case of GW / CC it is based on actual peer reviewed scientific evidence and scientific evidence that I have actually read.

If I was to make the statement: Man made Global Warming leading to Climate Change is a fact, full stop, end of story I would expect to be challenged. What do you base that statement on?

You will notice throughout this ENTIRE thread the posters who reject GW / CC, such as yourself, NEVER refer to the science of GW / CC. They stick rigidly to political and ideological statements that do not have any scientific research that agrees with that political ideology. Fact is when you look at the science it shows the exact opposite of the statements they make.

If you want to truly and honestly debate GW / CC you MUST!!! debate the peer reviewed science because without it there is no GW / CC and that requires a person to actually read and have a basic understanding of the science on GW / CC.

I promise you until I pressured Canuk he had never come anywhere near the actual science on GW / CC. He is just parroting what he has read on Climate Denier blogsites, Right Wing Conservative 'Institutions and 'Foundations' funded by the Fossil Fuel Industry, Rupert Murdoch's Fox News. None of which have the remotest connection to the peer reviewed scientific evidence on GW / CC.

I do use the term 'Climate Denier' because to not accept GW / CC you must deny an avalanche of scientific evidence to arrive at that conclusion.

I don't need to review any scientific reports to believe in C C/ G W as I do believe in C C/ G W and I have seen the evidence with my own eyes, so I don't know what you are going on about.

What has not been proven is if it is caused by humans.

[up2u2]

So what scientific evidence do you base that on? Or is that just a political ideological point of view? What scientific evidence on GW / CC do you disagree with? Where is that scientific evidence flawed? You do agree on the scientific evidence that Climates have changed in the past. Post ONE link to a peer reviewed scientific Paper / Research / Article that supports your view that the current GW and resulting CC is simply natural variability? Post ONE peer reviewed scientific Paper / Research / Article that explains the current rise in Global Temperatures and what is causing it. It is easy to make statements a totally different thing to present scientific evidence that demonstrates your opinion has merit.

?????? This thread and others like it are about non man made C C vs man made C C. If you believe the scientific evidence that climate change is occurring, but have no view on whether it is man made or not, you agree with me. If you believe it is man made why not admit it?

Either way, there is no rational plan to change/ reverse C C and you have not pointed to any evidence that there is.

There can be a million scientists agree that C C is man made, but without a plan to reverse/ stop it, they are just blowing hot air.

So what scientific evidence do you base your view that the current GW / CC is not man made?

I am assuming:

'non man made CC' = Natural Variability Global Warming resulting in Climate Change

'man made CC' = Anthropogenic Global Warming resulting in Climate Change.

The IPCC has indepth strategies and modelling to address GW / CC. If you want to know why not simply look it up? IPCC AR5

[RickBradford]

He is just parroting what he has read on Climate Denier blogsites, Right Wing Conservative 'Institutions and 'Foundations' funded by the Fossil Fuel Industry, Rupert Murdoch's Fox News. None of which have the remotest connection to the peer reviewed scientific evidence on GW / CC.

Textbook work which manages to include all the lame old Green/Left talking points in a single sentence.

Vulgar abuse (check), stupidity accusation (check), Fox News brainwashed (check), Big Oil involvement (check), Right Wing politics (check).

Do you really have so little imagination?

[Boon Mee]

Can't agree more with the emergence of these climate 'questioners', eh?

When the rubber meets the road, we all know it's a big fat scam.

[thaibeachlovers]

So what scientific evidence do you base that on? Or is that just a political ideological point of view? What scientific evidence on GW / CC do you disagree with? Where is that scientific evidence flawed? You do agree on the scientific evidence that Climates have changed in the past. Post ONE link to a peer reviewed scientific Paper / Research / Article that supports your view that the current GW and resulting CC is simply natural variability? Post ONE peer reviewed scientific Paper / Research / Article that explains the current rise in Global Temperatures and what is causing it. It is easy to make statements a totally different thing to present scientific evidence that demonstrates your opinion has merit.

?????? This thread and others like it are about non man made C C vs man made C C. If you believe the scientific evidence that climate change is occurring, but have no view on whether it is man made or not, you agree with me. If you believe it is man made why not admit it?

Either way, there is no rational plan to change/ reverse C C and you have not pointed to any evidence that there is.

There can be a million scientists agree that C C is man made, but without a plan to reverse/ stop it, they are just blowing hot air.

So what scientific evidence do you base your view that the current GW / CC is not man made?

I am assuming:

'non man made CC' = Natural Variability Global Warming resulting in Climate Change

'man made CC' = Anthropogenic Global Warming resulting in Climate Change.

The IPCC has indepth strategies and modelling to address GW / CC. If you want to know why not simply look it up? IPCC AR5

The IPCC has indepth strategies and modelling to address GW / CC.

I don't need to look them up to know that they are not being implemented. That is because nothing worthwhile is being done. That's right- ZERO is being done that would actually make a difference. In the time it took to read this probably several hundred new cars were sold worldwide, no air holidays have been cancelled because of pollution and not a single influential person has muttered anything about population control.

[up2u2]

I don't need to review any scientific reports to believe in C C/ G W as I do believe in C C/ G W and I have seen the evidence with my own eyes, so I don't know what you are going on about.

What has not been proven is if it is caused by humans.

So again what science do you rely on that shows GW is not anthropogenic?

I am assuming:

CC/GW = GW / CC (Global Warming leading to Climate Change)

Climate Change does not drive Global Warming. Increased CO₂ drives Global Warming which in turn drives Climate Change which in turn drives Extreme Weather Events.

[up2u2]

So what scientific evidence do you base that on? Or is that just a political ideological point of view? What scientific evidence on GW / CC do you disagree with? Where is that scientific evidence flawed? You do agree on the scientific evidence that Climates have changed in the past. Post ONE link to a peer reviewed scientific Paper / Research / Article that supports your view that the current GW and resulting CC is simply natural variability? Post ONE peer reviewed scientific Paper / Research / Article that explains the current rise in Global Temperatures and what is causing it. It is easy to make statements a totally different thing to present scientific evidence that demonstrates your opinion has merit.

?????? This thread and others like it are about non man made C C vs man made C C. If you believe the scientific evidence that climate change is occurring, but have no view on whether it is man made or not, you agree with me. If you believe it is man made why not admit it?

Either way, there is no rational plan to change/ reverse C C and you have not pointed to any evidence that there is.

There can be a million scientists agree that C C is man made, but without a plan to reverse/ stop it, they are just blowing hot air.

So what scientific evidence do you base your view that the current GW / CC is not man made?

I am assuming:

'non man made CC' = Natural Variability Global Warming resulting in Climate Change

'man made CC' = Anthropogenic Global Warming resulting in Climate Change.

The IPCC has indepth strategies and modelling to address GW / CC. If you want to know why not simply look it up? IPCC AR5

The IPCC has indepth strategies and modelling to address GW / CC.

I don't need to look them up to know that they are not being implemented. That is because nothing worthwhile is being done. That's right- ZERO is being done that would actually make a difference. In the time it took to read this probably several hundred new cars were sold worldwide, no air holidays have been cancelled because of pollution and not a single influential person has muttered anything about population control.

Oh okay well if you don't read the IPCC report AR5 you have no idea what strategies and modelling is being put forward. It is all there in IPCC report. It isn't difficult to find information on countries that are taking steps to reduce CO₂ emissions USA, China, UK, Europe, Brazil, Norway etc. China's recent announcement hasn't been factored in yet but collective commitments should see emissions kept under +3^OC. +2^OC is better to avoid severe consequences of CC but really under +3^OC is a good result for the Paris Conference.

It isn't difficult to educate yourself on these issues they are all published in detail on the Internet.

If you want to stay up to date on GW / CC and what is happening politically Skeptical Science website is an excellent information resource. Most major announcements are listed there on a daily basis.

[thaibeachlovers]

I don't need to review any scientific reports to believe in C C/ G W as I do believe in C C/ G W and I have seen the evidence with my own eyes, so I don't know what you are going on about.

What has not been proven is if it is caused by humans.

So again what science do you rely on that shows GW is not anthropogenic?

I am assuming:

CC/GW = GW / CC (Global Warming leading to Climate Change)

Climate Change does not drive Global Warming. Increased CO₂ drives Global Warming which in turn drives Climate Change which in turn drives Extreme Weather Events.

Increased CO₂ drives Global Warming which in turn drives Climate Change which in turn drives Extreme Weather Events.

NOT PROVEN. increased CO2 may be a RESULT of G W not a causation.

As for extreme weather events, they have happened with the same severity and as often in the past, before ^CO2 levels.

[RickBradford]

If you want to stay up to date on GW / CC and what is happening politically Skeptical Science website is an excellent information resource.

Any website that has that prize idiot John Cook as one of its mainstays should be ashamed to put the word 'science' in the title. His attempt to prove a 97% consensus on climate change has rightly been lambasted as one of the most lame and bungling efforts at statistics since Lord Nelson said "I see no ships."

They should stick to cartooning and dressing up in uniforms.