rationalskepticism.org

Macdod wrote
Either put up supporting documents that say natural factors are the primary cause of current warming or take your tripe elsewhere.

Supporting documents eh? Four and a half billion years of natural warming and cooling not enough eh? What documents do you want? Those that prove the world is four and a half billion years old and/or those that prove many incidents of warming and cooling over that time? Or do you want me to prove a negative by showing that natural processes are the same over the past 30 years as they have been in the previous four and a half billion?

I don't know of any science, not astronomy, not geology, not biology, not physics, not any at all that operates on the basis that the rules changed 30 years ago. I think the onus is upon anybody who follows such an irrational viewpoint to come up with evidence, any sort of evidence, and we can then all have a good laugh.

I would say the rationally sceptical point of view is to presume business as usual. Anything else is indeed tripe.

Every major science body on the planet and the climate science community as a consensus acknowledge human activity as the primary cause of current warming - the physics and the observations coincide on this.

Every major science body on the planet eh? Even those who know nothing about the climate then. How political can you get! By the way congratulations, that's the most comprehensive Appeal to Authority I've seen for a long time.

This from boots on the ground climate scientist who unlike you, understands the situation - both the science and the reality of change

These would be the scientists who say the sea level is rising when it isn't? I don't need a scientist to tell me when it's raining and I don't believe scientists who tell me things are different to what I can see with my own eyes. I don't dispute the reality of change, change is normal.

Here is what Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change.

This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”

Ten years. Good lord. If they can keep this going for another few centuries they will have a record as impressive as Ptolemy and his epicycles. Quite frankly that statement is scientific rubbish as your own comments above show. You do I think concede that there are natural climate change processes. You claim that the primary cause of current climate change is human action. That is a respectable theory. The disagreement comes between the two extremes:

1. Most of the recent climate change is man-made and natural processes have had only a minor effect.
2. Most of the recent climate change is due to natural processes and human actions have had only a minor effect.

Anybody who totally ignores natural processes is either ignorant, political or both. He/she is not acting scientifically.

In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on:

This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”

Ha, ha, ha. HA, HA, HA. HAR! HAR! HAR! There is not a person on the planet who has not had man-made global warming thrust down their throat by the media morning, noon and night for the past couple of decades! A documentary on just about anything and everything doesn't get on the air without a global warming aspect being included.

For more than a decade the Global Climate Coalition, a group representing industries with profits tied to fossil fuels, led an aggressive lobbying and public relations campaign against the idea that emissions of heat-trapping gases could lead to global warming.

Good lord, how evil of them. A different point of view. We must put a stop to that! We have to make sure that everybody has the same opinion on everything.

“The role of greenhouse gases in climate change is not well understood,” the coalition said in a scientific “backgrounder” provided to lawmakers and journalists through the early 1990s, adding that “scientists differ” on the issue.

Scientists differ on every issue. Or at least they should. It is when they all agree that I start counting my change.

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

A document eh. Well that's the end of it. 'A Document' no less. I'm obviously wasting my time.

But of course you in your science based wisdom know better.....think so? Prove it...we'll wait.

You're asking the wrong guy. I'm just somebody who is rationally sceptical. I couldn't even disprove Ptolemy's epicycles. Guess that means he got it right after all.

Meanwhile...dolts in the Senate akin to you dither

Stick to what you do best, that's what I say.