Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.

If anyone can tell to me how much difference man makes to the weather/climate/temperature and explain how they have reached that figure giving real data (not assumptions or best guess) then I may change my opinion on the whole thing.

I actually explained that just above as it happens, IPCC confidence in science of CAGW and extreme weather, 7%. That is definitely at least a point or two generous. There is no evidence at all.

The IPCC basically have turned guesses into better sounding , albeit best guesses, % into pretty words to make them not sound like guesses.

 

Yes.

 

one ash to ask one's self, who are the loudmouths saying all this extreme weather is related to CAGW?

Celebrities actors politicians and environmentalists and media, liberal media actually. Not credible scientists.

There is not one shred of any science to tie CAGW to extreme weather.

This next line creates cognitive dissonance in believers.
"Cannot predict weather next week, tries to predict weather next century."

 

I know

 

It's "extremely likely" you do already know. That's 95% by the way, but extremely likely sounds more certain does it not That 95% is also an accumulation of different things, all mashed together, different sciences and opinions with different percentages. So in that 95% could be a crucial paper with only a 60% certainty, but you wont know that unless you read the paper itself

 

just asking again.

 

The Met lost it's contract with the BBC after it's bogus claims this summer, they say other reasons, but they have been an embarrassment. Caught out twice this year on bogus claims. Cant be certain but doesn't seem a coincidence

 

I have posted enough stuff to keep you reading for a few days, and you what? what as you even asking me?

What answer?

 

That line you quoted, proved PJ's post about the 1896 paper, it debunks it, and I then provided NASA saying the exact same thing to further destroy the Tyndall nonsense.

It proves that CO2 cannot cause catastrophic warming

 

your answer to donga re C02

 

That line you quoted, disproved PJ's post about the 1896 paper, it debunks it, and I then provided Schneider at NASA in 71 saying the exact same thing to further destroy the Tyndall nonsense.

It proves that CO2 cannot cause catastrophic warming

Tyndall was debunked decades before this fraud even began, now they use it as "proof"

 

It's not a 'fact' it's a theory, and one that is hotly disputed.

 

I've talked to MANY people about this and the people who know least are the environmentalists.

 

Perhaps you can answer a straight question then, Diego. The majority of climatologists worldwide conclude that global warming is a fact and that human activity is most likely a contributory factor. Are they fools or liars, in your opinion?

 

@Diego ^^ is denial.

He doesn't understand the science at all, he doesn't know who the scientists are, what their qualifications are, what their opinions are. He doesn't know the data or anything else.

basically he has the media, and David Cameron to back him up, all Tobes is aware of is Guardian alarmism and daffodils in December. His hysteria the other day was hilarious. I utterly destroyed his december crap

 

Anyone ever considered this might be nothing to do with global warming/climate change/CO2?

It would seem to me that all these governments are trying to reduce our use of fossil fuels. Could this be because we have more or less reached 50% use of all known accessible stocks?
This has happened in a very short time, now we have 3rd world countries expanding the market and 1st world countries using more also. The next 50% will not last as long as the first.
If the governments of the world came out and said this there would be mass panic and hording of oil (not good for anybody, even the oil companies at its present low rate) so the easier way would be to wean us off it (scare us into not using it) with a story they can't prove but is hard to disprove (especially if anyone with any real knowledge of the subject gets ostracised if they rebel).

Surely if we faced a crisis due to too much CO2 in the atmosphere they would concentrate a bit more on deforestation. This is bad in two ways, we cut down the trees that convert CO2 to oxygen, then we burn the waste wood (or old furniture etc) to create more CO2. Double whammy.

 

Re reading, I read it backwards. I thought the debate was "over" and man made climate change was real and I was in denial?

7% is not a lot to stake your lot on

#clueless

 

How many actual "climatologists"?
Most likely?
Contributing how much?

 

Found yourself a play mate have you love, ahhhh sweet.

FYI I have read the science behind both the claim and the rebuttal. The premise that it's already saturated so **** it, is shot down in whole host of scientific pieces on the net.

Go **** yourself btw

 

Don't wriggle.
Even Sis won't deny that that is the widely held belief.
Answer the question, if you can.