What Do YOU Believe is Actually Happening?

[Votto]

One thing that climate change/global warming addicts can never explain to me is how would paying a carbon tax to the very same entities that own the big oil companies while suppressing petroleum free technology going to "cool the planet"?

I'm not surprised you're in wonderment. The IMF has no taxing authority and would not collect taxes on carbon. Governments would collect those taxes just as they collect all other taxes. That tax money would not be turned over to the petroleum industry. It would be up to the various governments to decide what they would do with it but it's hoped they would use it to finance the infrastructure changes needed to move away from fossil fuels and towards hydrogen, solar, tidal, nuclear, etc.

So government will create massive pots of money that they will distribute to whom they wish?

What could possibly go wrong?

Just think, government may one day have a solution to a problem that does not involve taxation. More than likely though, we will all be long dead.

 

[Crick]

C'mon. Use your head. London has several very busy airports. Some of the busiest in the world

As a casual reader it seems to me they just don't know, not enough evidence and data.
IS COMMON FUCKING SENSE.

I'd say you need to be more than a casual reader before assuming you've come to a valid conclusion

 

[Wyatt earp]

C'mon. Use your head. London has several very busy airports. Some of the busiest in the world

As a casual reader it seems to me they just don't know, not enough evidence and data.
IS COMMON FUCKING SENSE.

I'd say you need to be more than a casual reader before assuming you've come to a valid conclusion

I don't know how much more I could take after reading 40 years of the AGW cult casually. Its not like I will get laid or become a billionaire if I became a climatologist, I would have to study more on how to Bullshit people like AL Gore and the rest of the AGW cult to do that. Not interested.

 

[Crick]

What you could use is some calculus, physics and thermodynamics.

Not surprised you're not interest though. That's a fairly common viewpoint among deniers.

 

[skookerasbil]

The poll is ghey

What is happening is that we are witnessing the greatest and most brilliant and elaborate hoax ever perpetuated on civilized society.

And ps......if the science is so settled, why would one post up such a poll??



[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Canadian-Icebreaker-Working-to-Free-Stuck-Cargo-Ship1.jpg.html][/URL]

 

[Desperado]

Over the centuries the earth's climate changes. It is a natural occurrence.
The thing that has not happened before is that humans think they should stop the changes.
The is pretty arrogant of us to think we know what the best temp for the earth is.

 

[Crick]

Obviously man had no influence on climate changes in the distant past. Where ever did you get the idea that indicates he cannot change it now?

Changes as rapid as those we are currently undergoing are NOT normal. They have not happened in all of human history. They will be very difficult to deal with.

So, if you have enough brain to accept that it is warming at an unusually high rate, that this warming will cause us several different kinds of harm and that this warming is due to our activity, why the fuck would you not want to act - to modify our behavior - to ameliorate the problem?

 

[SSDD]

Obviously man had no influence on climate changes in the distant past. Where ever did you get the idea that indicates he cannot change it now?

Changes as rapid as those we are currently undergoing are NOT normal. They have not happened in all of human history. They will be very difficult to deal with.

Are you sure of that? Got any actual evidence or just proxy data which lacks the resolution to support such a claim? There is nothing whatsoever going on in today's climate that is outside, or even getting close to the boundaries of natural variability.

Again...Got any actual evidence that can separate a human fingerprint from natural variation?...got anything like empirical evidence to support the claim of a particular climate sensitivity to CO2 that would be required to separate natural variation from a human fingerprint...can you state empirically that we know all natural variables that effect the climate and to what degree they do so which would also be required to identify and tease out a human fingerprint from the noise?.....or as you say, you are just speaking from a position of "belief"?

So, if you have enough brain to accept that it is warming at an unusually high rate,

Upon what do you base your claim of an unusually high rate? Again, what proxy data do you have that has the resolution required to make and support such a claim?

that this warming will cause us several different kinds of harm

You claim that warning us going to cause harm and cause it in several varieties, but you can't state with any certainty what the ideal temperature is for life on planet earth? And if you can't state with any real certainty, upon what do you base your claim of harm?

and that this warming is due to our activity,

Back to the real question...is it due to our activity? Is the present climate outside the bounds of natural variability? What proxy data do you possess that has sufficient resolution to make and support such a claim? Can you state precisely what the climate sensitivity to CO2 is? Can you state empirically and support the claim that you are aware of every climate variable, how much they effect the climate, and how much they effect each other? Such knowledge would be required if one were actually going to tease out an anthropogenic fingerprint from all the climate noise. You claim it is due to our activity but the fact is that you don't have anything like enough information to actually support such a claim.

why the fuck would you not want to act - to modify our behavior - to ameliorate the problem?

First, since you can not begin to support the claim that the present temperature is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth, your claim that there is a problem is specious at the very least...more accurately, I would call it fear mongering of the worst sort. And how much will it cost to act? How much actual change in the climate do you believe ( and I say believe because it is clear that you don't have nearly enough data to make even an educated guess) this change in behavior will cause? Does the benefit to cost ratio of this change warrant making the change and upon what do you base your claim?

The real question is that considering how little we know about the climate and what drives it....why would we make such an expensive change which would have questionable effect and tremendous costs when we can't even say what the ideal temperature for life on planet earth is relative to the present temperature...we can say that we know beyond doubt that colder is not better...and history has shown us that civilizations bloomed during periods that were warmer than the present. Upon what actual facts, and empirical evidence do you base your handwaving claims that we need to act, and act now in regards to global climate.....especially when we face real environmental problems that could be addressed with the money that you are talking about spending on climate?

 

[Crick]

Why does SSDD so often require that his opponents repeat explanations he has been presented with on multiple occasions? Is he unteachable or is it that he hopes others won't recall his argument's past refutations.

Obviously man had no influence on climate changes in the distant past. Where ever did you get the idea that indicates he cannot change it now?

Changes as rapid as those we are currently undergoing are NOT normal. They have not happened in all of human history. They will be very difficult to deal with.

Are you sure of that?

Yes. On a geological time scale, human history isn't that long. Homo Sapiens appeared only 200,000 years ago and, of course, humans built enough infrastructure to make themselves vulnerable to rapid climate change only in the last few centuries.

Got any actual evidence or just proxy data which lacks the resolution to support such a claim?

Proxy data IS evidence, numb nuts. And the proxy data, in the Holocene at least, has sufficient resolution that it is certain a recreation of the current parameters has not occurred in that time frame. The record in the more distant past is equally informative because it shows that the major periods of elevated temperature and CO2 took geological spans of time to build - well within the chronological resolution of those records. The existing data precludes rapid spikes because is accurately shows such changes took place with glacial slowness.

There is nothing whatsoever going on in today's climate that is outside, or even getting close to the boundaries of natural variability.

I'm sorry, SID, but if you want to claim the paleo record lacks sufficient chronological resolution to inform us as needed, then you cannot claim to know the boundaries of natural variability.

Again...Got any actual evidence that can separate a human fingerprint from natural variation?

We have isotopic analysis. The CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was produced by the combustion of coal and oil. It is ours.

...got anything like empirical evidence to support the claim of a particular climate sensitivity to CO2 that would be required to separate natural variation from a human fingerprint.

Climate sensitivity is calculated in a variety of manners and such efforts have produced a range of values. What makes you think that a "particular climate sensitivity value is required to identify anthropogenicity?

..can you state empirically that we know all natural variables that effect the climate and to what degree they do so which would also be required to identify and tease out a human fingerprint from the noise?

Can you not understand how fundamentally ignorant is that demand? It is a good example of why proofs are not used in the natural sciences.

So, if you have enough brain to accept that it is warming at an unusually high rate,

Upon what do you base your claim of an unusually high rate? Again, what proxy data do you have that has the resolution required to make and support such a claim?

Shakun and Marcotte's data from the Holocene have more than enough resolution to rule out the possibility that conditions such as we are experiencing today could take place and then vanish within the narrow window required to make such an occurrence invisible.

that this warming will cause us several different kinds of harm

You claim that warning us going to cause harm and cause it in several varieties, but you can't state with any certainty what the ideal temperature is for life on planet earth? And if you can't state with any real certainty, upon what do you base your claim of harm?

Our first evidence of harm is that such ignorance should be raised in its defense. It is not the absolute temperatures that represent great danger, it is the rate of change.

and that this warming is due to our activity,

Back to the real question...is it due to our activity?

Yes, it is.

Is the present climate outside the bounds of natural variability?

By every measure, it is. But even were it not, the evidence tells us that we are responsible, that it will harm us and that it is possible for us to mitigate that harm. There is nothing intrinsically harmless about the natural range of variability. Volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes and forest fires all take place naturally. Does that mean we should not avoid them if possible? Your argument is, as usual, logically flawed.

What proxy data do you possess that has sufficient resolution to make and support such a claim?

Asked and answered.

Can you state precisely what the climate sensitivity to CO2 is?

You cannot explain why a precise value is required for the purposes of this argument.

Can you state empirically and support the claim that you are aware of every climate variable, how much they effect the climate, and how much they effect each other?

You've just taken the shotgun approach. It's a good indication that you don't have a meaningful argument here. This is the second time you've demanded that I "state empirically" a claim of omniscience. So, this is the second time you've demonstrated your ignorance of natural science and some very weak logic.

Such knowledge would be required if one were actually going to tease out an anthropogenic fingerprint from all the climate noise.

No, it is not. This is a commonplace argument made by poor debaters with weak to no arguments. You demand omniscience from your opponent before any action is justified. Such a position fails on all grounds.

You claim it is due to our activity but the fact is that you don't have anything like enough information to actually support such a claim.

And, of course, you will be the arbiter of what constitutes "enough information". Not surprisingly, it seems to be far more than was required to convince all the actual experts in the field.

why the fuck would you not want to act - to modify our behavior - to ameliorate the problem?

First, since you can not begin to support the claim that the present temperature is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth

I have never made such a claim.

your claim that there is a problem is specious at the very least.

My claim - the claim of the experts - isn't the least bit specious. The danger, as you've been told repeatedly, is the rate of change. That you continually return to specious arguments about absolute temperature values tells me that you have no response to that statement of fact.

more accurately, I would call it fear mongering of the worst sort.

Warning the public of a real danger is not "fear mongering". It is our duty. Attempting to convince the public, in the face of overwhelming evidence and an extremely strong consensus among the experts, that no danger exists, is gross irresponsibility.

And how much will it cost to act?

Far, far less than it will cost to fail to do so.

How much actual change in the climate do you believe ( and I say believe because it is clear that you don't have nearly enough data to make even an educated guess) this change in behavior will cause? Does the benefit to cost ratio of this change warrant making the change and upon what do you base your claim?

This argument is specious

The real question is that considering how little we know about the climate and what drives it.

"How little we know", are weasel words. Having been studied intensely for several decades now, we know more than enough to be extremely confident that AGW is valid and needs to be addressed.

.why would we make such an expensive change which would have questionable effect and tremendous costs when we can't even say what the ideal temperature for life on planet earth is relative to the present temperature...we can say that we know beyond doubt that colder is not better...and history has shown us that civilizations bloomed during periods that were warmer than the present. Upon what actual facts, and empirical evidence do you base your handwaving claims that we need to act, and act now in regards to global climate.....especially when we face real environmental problems that could be addressed with the money that you are talking about spending on climate?

Because we care about our children and the quality of life on this planet.

 

[skookerasbil]

Why does SSDD so often require that his opponents repeat explanations he has been presented with on multiple occasions? Is he unteachable or is it that he hopes others won't recall his argument's past refutations.

Obviously man had no influence on climate changes in the distant past. Where ever did you get the idea that indicates he cannot change it now?

Changes as rapid as those we are currently undergoing are NOT normal. They have not happened in all of human history. They will be very difficult to deal with.

Are you sure of that?

Yes. On a geological time scale, human history isn't that long. Homo Sapiens appeared only 200,000 years ago and, of course, humans built enough infrastructure to make themselves vulnerable to rapid climate change only in the last few centuries.

Got any actual evidence or just proxy data which lacks the resolution to support such a claim?

Proxy data IS evidence, numb nuts. And the proxy data, in the Holocene at least, has sufficient resolution that it is certain a recreation of the current parameters has not occurred in that time frame. The record in the more distant past is equally informative because it shows that the major periods of elevated temperature and CO2 took geological spans of time to build - well within the chronological resolution of those records. The existing data precludes rapid spikes because is accurately shows such changes took place with glacial slowness.

There is nothing whatsoever going on in today's climate that is outside, or even getting close to the boundaries of natural variability.

I'm sorry, SID, but if you want to claim the paleo record lacks sufficient chronological resolution to inform us as needed, then you cannot claim to know the boundaries of natural variability.

Again...Got any actual evidence that can separate a human fingerprint from natural variation?

We have isotopic analysis. The CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was produced by the combustion of coal and oil. It is ours.

...got anything like empirical evidence to support the claim of a particular climate sensitivity to CO2 that would be required to separate natural variation from a human fingerprint.

Climate sensitivity is calculated in a variety of manners and such efforts have produced a range of values. What makes you think that a "particular climate sensitivity value is required to identify anthropogenicity?

..can you state empirically that we know all natural variables that effect the climate and to what degree they do so which would also be required to identify and tease out a human fingerprint from the noise?

Can you not understand how fundamentally ignorant is that demand? It is a good example of why proofs are not used in the natural sciences.

So, if you have enough brain to accept that it is warming at an unusually high rate,

Upon what do you base your claim of an unusually high rate? Again, what proxy data do you have that has the resolution required to make and support such a claim?

Shakun and Marcotte's data from the Holocene have more than enough resolution to rule out the possibility that conditions such as we are experiencing today could take place and then vanish within the narrow window required to make such an occurrence invisible.

that this warming will cause us several different kinds of harm

You claim that warning us going to cause harm and cause it in several varieties, but you can't state with any certainty what the ideal temperature is for life on planet earth? And if you can't state with any real certainty, upon what do you base your claim of harm?

Our first evidence of harm is that such ignorance should be raised in its defense. It is not the absolute temperatures that represent great danger, it is the rate of change.

and that this warming is due to our activity,

Back to the real question...is it due to our activity?

Yes, it is.

Is the present climate outside the bounds of natural variability?

By every measure, it is. But even were it not, the evidence tells us that we are responsible, that it will harm us and that it is possible for us to mitigate that harm. There is nothing intrinsically harmless about the natural range of variability. Volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes and forest fires all take place naturally. Does that mean we should not avoid them if possible? Your argument is, as usual, logically flawed.

What proxy data do you possess that has sufficient resolution to make and support such a claim?

Asked and answered.

Can you state precisely what the climate sensitivity to CO2 is?

You cannot explain why a precise value is required for the purposes of this argument.

Can you state empirically and support the claim that you are aware of every climate variable, how much they effect the climate, and how much they effect each other?

You've just taken the shotgun approach. It's a good indication that you don't have a meaningful argument here. This is the second time you've demanded that I "state empirically" a claim of omniscience. So, this is the second time you've demonstrated your ignorance of natural science and some very weak logic.

Such knowledge would be required if one were actually going to tease out an anthropogenic fingerprint from all the climate noise.

No, it is not. This is a commonplace argument made by poor debaters with weak to no arguments. You demand omniscience from your opponent before any action is justified. Such a position fails on all grounds.

You claim it is due to our activity but the fact is that you don't have anything like enough information to actually support such a claim.

And, of course, you will be the arbiter of what constitutes "enough information". Not surprisingly, it seems to be far more than was required to convince all the actual experts in the field.

why the fuck would you not want to act - to modify our behavior - to ameliorate the problem?

First, since you can not begin to support the claim that the present temperature is the ideal temperature for life on planet earth

I have never made such a claim.

your claim that there is a problem is specious at the very least.

My claim - the claim of the experts - isn't the least bit specious. The danger, as you've been told repeatedly, is the rate of change. That you continually return to specious arguments about absolute temperature values tells me that you have no response to that statement of fact.

more accurately, I would call it fear mongering of the worst sort.

Warning the public of a real danger is not "fear mongering". It is our duty. Attempting to convince the public, in the face of overwhelming evidence and an extremely strong consensus among the experts, that no danger exists, is gross irresponsibility.

And how much will it cost to act?

Far, far less than it will cost to fail to do so.

How much actual change in the climate do you believe ( and I say believe because it is clear that you don't have nearly enough data to make even an educated guess) this change in behavior will cause? Does the benefit to cost ratio of this change warrant making the change and upon what do you base your claim?

This argument is specious

The real question is that considering how little we know about the climate and what drives it.

"How little we know", are weasel words. Having been studied intensely for several decades now, we know more than enough to be extremely confident that AGW is valid and needs to be addressed.

.why would we make such an expensive change which would have questionable effect and tremendous costs when we can't even say what the ideal temperature for life on planet earth is relative to the present temperature...we can say that we know beyond doubt that colder is not better...and history has shown us that civilizations bloomed during periods that were warmer than the present. Upon what actual facts, and empirical evidence do you base your handwaving claims that we need to act, and act now in regards to global climate.....especially when we face real environmental problems that could be addressed with the money that you are talking about spending on climate?

Because we care about our children and the quality of human life on this planet.

Dang..........this guy sure as hell gets points for effort!!!


Meanwhile, I post up a link here in about 30 seconds and blows all his shit up in a nano-second >>


Climate Models Have Been Wrong About Global Warming For Six Decades

 

[Crick]

No, you do not.

 

[SSDD]

Yes. On a geological time scale, human history isn't that long. Homo Sapiens appeared only 200,000 years ago and, of course, humans built enough infrastructure to make themselves vulnerable to rapid climate change only in the last few centuries.

Really? We have been coming out of the little ice age and don't seem to vulnerable to that. If you are talking about infrastructure built in places that are subject to very small changes, then perhaps we should never have built there...and in any case, the changes are gradual as they have been for the past few centuries and we can certainly adapt to that easily enough.

Proxy data IS evidence, numb nuts. And the proxy data, in the Holocene at least, has sufficient resolution that it is certain a recreation of the current parameters has not occurred in that time frame..

Really? You have proxy data with a resolution of just a couple of hundred years. You know as well as I...or you should that there is no proxy data that has anywhere near the resolution needed to make the sort of claims you are making.

I'm sorry, SID, but if you want to claim the paleo record lacks sufficient chronological resolution to inform us as needed, then you cannot claim to know the boundaries of natural variability.

You know...for someone who claims to be an engineer, you sure are a doofus...maybe you are a custodial engineer...the paleo record tells us how warm and how cold it has been...the min and the max are natural variability...they do not make claims as to time which you are making and in doing so are doing nothing more than talking out of your ass because there is no proxy data that has that sort of resolution...

We have isotopic analysis. The CO2 added to the atmosphere since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution was produced by the combustion of coal and oil. It is ours.

No one is disputing that we produce CO2 idiot child...the question was whether you had any actual evidence that could separate natural variation from a human fingerprint...I will take your answer to be a no.

Climate sensitivity is calculated in a variety of manners and such efforts have produced a range of values. What makes you think that a "particular climate sensitivity value is required to identify anthropogenicity?

The question was, do you have any evidence that would support a claim of a particular climate sensitivity to CO2...again, I will take your answer as a no. If you are going to claim that mankind is altering the climate, then we would need to know how much effect natural CO2 has on the climate and then from there we could see if our own contribution had an additional effect..if you can't say how sensitive to CO2 the climate is, then you have no idea even how much it varies due to natural increases and decreases in CO2...much less whether it even notices our meager contributions.

Can you not understand how fundamentally ignorant is that demand? It is a good example of why proofs are not used in the natural sciences.

Can you not understand how fundamentally ignorant it is to make claims of our impact on the climate until we do know the natural factors well enough to be sure that we know them all and how they interact? Anything less is just a wild assed guess.

Shakun and Marcotte's data from the Holocene have more than enough resolution to rule out the possibility that conditions such as we are experiencing today could take place and then vanish within the narrow window required to make such an occurrence invisible.

Sorry guy, but those data aren't even close to having that sort of resolution and even you should know that.

Our first evidence of harm is that such ignorance should be raised in its defense. It is not the absolute temperatures that represent great danger, it is the rate of change.

A fraction of a degree per century? That's what you are worried about? And again, you have no data that would suggest that temperatures have not increased more rapidly and to a greater degree in the past...any such claim is no more than talking out of your ass.

Yes, it is.

Based on what empirical evidence?

By every measure, it is. But even were it not, the evidence tells us that we are responsible, that it will harm us and that it is possible for us to mitigate that harm. There is nothing intrinsically harmless about the natural range of variability. Volcanoes, earthquakes, hurricanes and forest fires all take place naturally. Does that mean we should not avoid them if possible? Your argument is, as usual, logically flawed.

A bald faced lie crick and you know it...or you should. There is not a shred of hard evidence that says that whatever changes we are presently seeing are outside the bounds of natural variability...or even close to the boundaries. Talking out of your ass again. Arguments based on lies won't win you any points.

The rest of your post is just repeats of the lies you have already told...the empirical evidence supporting even the most basic claim of the AGW hypothesis does not exist...much less actual evidence to support the rest of your hysterical claims. You and yours are just making it up as you go..

 

[SSDD]

No, you do not.

Of course he does and the models have been consistently wrong for over half a century...

 

[PredFan]

The climate has been changing since the planet cooled into a solid.

Man has nothing to do with it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Goodness sakes, here is ol' Preddy stating two sentences and thinking that he has prove the work of decades of thousands of scientists wrong. Mostly has proven himself to be another clueless idiot.

Just as the scientists predicted, every decade, we get more and more record years for temperature.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here's what's actually happening:

People paid to believe in AGW have been altering the data to fit their flailed, flawed bizzarroland "theory"

Land based readings showed a 2 decade long pause, so they added in a whole new data set: 93% of the Excess heat absorbed by the deep ocean. It's a fraud and they have totally and irrevocably fucked themselves for saying it

 

[SSDD]

Goodness sakes, here is ol' Preddy stating two sentences and thinking that he has prove the work of decades of thousands of scientists wrong. Mostly has proven himself to be another clueless idiot.

You always speak as if you were talking from a strong position supported by mountains of empirical evidence rather than from a very weak position based on little more than an appeal to questionable authority. Maybe you could provide some empirical evidence from the decades of work from these thousands of scientists which would support the claims being made presently...

I have six straight forward questions...can you provide six...or five, or four, or even one straight forward answer supported by hard empirical evidence?

1. Do you have any actual empirical evidence that would support the claim that the climate today is unprecedented? What sort of observed data do you have that prove that the climate today is outside the bounds of natural variability....or even approaching the borderlands of natural variability for that matter? If you are depending on proxy data, what sort of proxy data do you have that would have the sort of resolution required to make any claim at all about the short climate window we are talking about here?

2. You claim that mankind is altering the climate which must mean that you are able to tease out a human fingerprint from all of the climate noise. You must be able to do it otherwise the claim that man is changing the climate to his own detriment would be nothing more than hysterical alarmist handwaving based on nothing more than political motivations.. So what sort of empirical evidence do you have that would put a precise number on the climate sensitivity to CO2? A precise number would be required if you are going to claim that X percent of the warming we have seen over the past century and a half is due to mankind.

3. The climate is a chaotic system. Can you state with any confidence at all that climate science knows all of the natural variables that effect the climate....how much each variable alone affects the climate (put a number to it) and how that numerical variable changes when it interacts with one, or multiple other variables? You would need to be able to do that with a high degree of accuracy in order to identify a human fingerprint within the chaos that is the natural variability of the climate.

4. Aside from the claim that man is causing warming...there is the claim that warming is going to cause us harm. Can you state with any certainty precisely what the ideal temperature is for life on planet earth? Upon what empirical evidence do you base your claim if you have one?

5. This action you want for me to take based upon your claim is going to cost money...and if you want everyone to act, it is going to cost a lot of money....a whole great big stinking pile of money. Money that we might use, for example to address the very real and serious environmental problems facing this planet right now....pollution, habitat loss, etc.

6. How much change in the climate do you believe will result from our taking this action that you want? What will the cost to benefit ratio be if we take this action...keep in mind that unless you can state with any precision what the ideal temperature for life on planet earth is, any claim that the cost is worth it doesn't carry much weight. Relative to the present temperature, will this action you want us to take move us towards, or away from the ideal temperature for life on planet earth...and for that matter, can you give any assurance based on real empirical evidence that making this change will result in any alteration of the present climate at all.

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, without writing a book, virtually all the scientists in the world state that AGW is real, so why should I given any weight to the opinion of someone that has repeatedly shown themselves to be an ignoramus?

 

[Dale Smith]

Well, without writing a book, virtually all the scientists in the world state that AGW is real, so why should I given any weight to the opinion of someone that has repeatedly shown themselves to be an ignoramus?

There is no consensus approaching 97 percent claiming that human action is causing Climate change/Global warming. A vigorous, vocal minority exists...of that there is no doubt. Global cooling for the last twenty years coincides with the D.O.D/NASA's geo-engineering using aerosol spraying of nano-particulates like barium, strontium and aluminum that will allegedly reflect the sunlight back into the ionosphere instead of making it to earth. An interesting side note...in 1976 a U.N treaty was signed by all member countries that they would not use weather as a weapon of war but it says nothing about countries using it to manipulate their own weather. Chem-trails also serve a secondary purpose, they can be heated up using ionospheric heaters and can manipulate the jet stream or weaken/strengthen storm fronts. We already know that Operation Popeye was a cloud seeding program that made it rain for a month in Vietnam to shut down the Viet-Cong supply lines. Just think of the progress that they have made over the last 50 years....

 

[SSDD]

Well, without writing a book, virtually all the scientists in the world state that AGW is real, so why should I given any weight to the opinion of someone that has repeatedly shown themselves to be an ignoramus?

So you can't provide a straight forward answer supported by hard empirical evidence for even one of my questions. You fall back on the good old appeal to questionable authority. Why is that not surprising...and you call me an ignoramus?