TheFunPolice wrote on Dec 18^th, 2016 at 6:18pm:


First described in the 1850's. What a bore.

TheFunPolice wrote on Dec 18^th, 2016 at 10:42pm:


yes, with your inanities.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 5:52pm:


I was merely pointing out that seeing as you are so afraid of CO2, perhaps you could cut down some trees. :

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 8:00pm:



Nope I knew it. I didn't "though" it.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 8:00pm:


I surprised you know the word, but you would have to show you know the meaning and point out my egregious error.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 8:00pm:


First you have to prove it is a correction.

Pho Huc wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 9:38pm:



Please cite the evidence that it is AGW, not natural variation.

Of course the "Climate Science" has said that the warming is too much for natural variability. If that is so, the "hiatus" or "pause" cannot be attributed to natural variability, because apparently CO2  is the driver of climate change.

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 9:54pm:


What evidence would you like? I presume papers based on empirical evidence? How many? in which languages? from when-the 1960's? 70's? 80's, 90's-the last 15 years? yesterday;)?

Your welcome to pick any of those parameters and ill post as many as you want.

Its the wonderful thing about science. Its not about being right first time. Its about putting forward a hypothesis based on the available evidence, and attempting to prove it. The peer review process makes it hard for flawed ideas to remain unchallenged as there is considerable prestige in debunking a established scientific belief.
In spite of this innate self correcting nature there is a more consensus supporting AGW in the relevant scientific communities than ever before.

If anyone can actually demonstrate that the current data doesn't indicate AGW that person is set for life, from a financial and status view point.
You could argue that only a small number of people are actively looking for proof that climate change is not anthropogenic, but that would be flawed since science is not about looking for proof of a preexisting opinion, rather about collecting data and finding a coherent consistent explanation(which is how all the scientists came to conclusion that its anthropogenic) 

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 10:54pm:


Solid rebuttal Lee.
Nothing to say about the rest of its points which pretty much undermine 90% of your contributions to this board?

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 11:08pm:


Brian Dunning proves two things.
CO2 levels have increased.
The climate has got hotter.

He then states that science has no CREDIBLE explanation for this warming, other than it being caused by CO2(Causative). Because it is the only thing which could be causing climate change, and it would be expected to create climate change, its probably the cause of climate change. Its about as solid as science gets really.

Since your position has been either or;
(A) the climate is not changing
(B) The changing climate is not cuased by CO2/ The CO2 increase is not anthropogenic.

I invite you to provide a more credible hypothesis for climate change. Unless you think its just God twinkling his fingers in which case ill cease arguing with you, pack up my bat and go home.