I hope you don’t mind if I don’t copy everything, but I did read the rest just shortening to simplify,

First I am not the IPCC or work for them, you have to stop fighting them and bring the discussion to DJY and Anthony.

Second you say “two imperatives of tackling world poverty and hunger;” I don’t understand how that makes them the bad guys, those sound like good goals to me.

Thirdly I don’t get why it matters. Let me put it this way, if you have some poor hungry people in the jungle wouldn’t using the money now wasted fighting global warming to chop down the forest, build a couple of apartments, build a polluting turn of the century factory, plant some of the new fields with crops, ship stuff to and from the people working in that new “developed place” to the rest of the world do more to help those people with hunger and poverty? I don’t see any real benefit for the IPCC to create a fake boogeyman

Lastly are they seeking out the evidence? I think they are but isn’t that the definition of investigating, what should they do? Turn a blind eye to it because it is an inconvenient truth?



does any of that contradict what I said or does it agree with it? It only contradicts what you think the IPPC and Santer said. The only way to be able to say it is 100%
of natural causes is if somehow you could prove that it is impossible that the man made versions of the gazes can’t make it that high (while the natural vesions can) as well as at the lower level they can’t have an impact (i.e. more man made gases don’t mean more natural gases).


no need, I just brought it up because it fit in the discussion. It is one thing to read in an article about people throwing a good party for a glacier and hearing it might become an issue 100 years from now and completely different to realize that we are living in a new normal.


But you see it is not steadily. My friend has had the place for over 30 years, his dad bought a house in that neighbourhood around 80 years ago no one imagined it would happen. After the 2017 flood my friend joked that it wasn’t all bad, it was the kick needed for a remodel and now it will be good for as long as he owns the house.


But there is. All the evidence sais the same thing, it is a matter of interpretation As to how much is man made and how much is natural. The issue I have is does it really matter ? like I said before if it is all man made then we can more easily deal with it, the more it is natural the more we need to fight nature (which should be harder)


never said global warming is the only thing that destroys lives, but like you pointed out when there is an other cause dumb excuses don’t last long.

I did not say that, you said the UK can have 40 degrees difference over the year. Let me put it this way, I have a friend and co worker that several years ago accepted a new position in Singapore when he first moved there he found it freakishly odd that no one discussed the weather since here it tends to be the go to small talk , first thing after a hi, but after living there for a few months and then a whole year he realized why they don’t talk weather there, there is nothing to say when it is the exact same thing day in day out. It was meant as an acknowledgement that for some people seasons can be a foreign concept, but where I live and southern Alberta was snowed in [Link: calgary.ctvnews.ca] this weekejnd while I was swimming outddoors I don`t need someone to explain y to me that
and this are more or less the same place just a few months apart and there is nothing wrong




not sure what point you are making. I thought we both agreed that there where times in the past when the world was warmer. I am just not in a rush to get back there because it was not necessarily good for humans.



Why not?


absolutely take Venus for example, it is a lot further from the sun then Mercury and so should be much colder but it is much hotter because it has a thick coat of greenhouse gazes


depends, if we are talking some nut ball that wants to build a giant brick wall between the earth and the sun, then yes. But you can’t argue that trying to control unnatural CO₂ can’t have any effect because it is not enough to affect climate but at the same token that it might be so much that it has a counter effect. Plus if that was the case wouldn’t the solution be simple, add a few matches to some giant forest?


Can you show me where I advocated knee-jerk actions/reactions? I just think we need to acknowledge the reality and work for an end goal. For example I think there is no need for ultra polluting coal power plants built using 100 year old technology, when we can build (if needed) much cleaner coal plants (or even a zero emission coal plant). Let me put it this way around 20 years ago I needed a new car, I looked at the ZENN, there was a lot to love, it runs on cheap or free green electricity produced locally and regular maintenance would be much cheaper and less often. But even though it made sense for the 5 km to the bus terminal and back every work day, if I wanted it to go to my friends cottages (1.5h-2.25h away), my sisters home (2.5h away) her cottage (4h away) or my cousins home (8h away) it quickly became impractical. So all the benefits became moot and decided just to replace my car with an other conventional car. And ever since then when I needed a new car (and even when I did not) I looked at electrical cars but bought conventional ones because they just don’t make sense IMHO and context. I Am not looking for a car that is only practical for short distances, I want one that also works on the longue ones and I don’t need two cars.

As for the loser comment I am sorry you took it so personally, it was definitely not meant as a personal diss. I just think in life, in any circumstances, a person can either be defeatist and then they guarantee they will lose or they can try their bests and even if they lose at least they tried their best.


Maybe that is true, but let’s forget 50 or 100 or 1000 years from now look at “today” [Link: montrealgazette.com]
[Link: bbc.com]



don’t know about the UK and maybe it is not BS for you (or your country). But here (southern Quebec) I don’t think there is any doubt. The winters have become colder and snowier (why flooding has become such an issue) and the summers have become hotter and drier. I have a friend I grew up with he is a farmer farming the same land his dad did , planting the same crops his before I as born his dad dug an artificial pond that works as a water reservoir for watering crops, 4 years ago my friend had to make it larger for the first time since his dad dug the hole, this summer he told me he will need to increase it again later this fall.





Honestly IMHO political future projections are always a joke and a way to pretend a problem is fixed. The deficit now is XXX but we have a plan for 0 deficit when someone else will be in power”...


so you can be right and it is a pipe dream. But who knows, Coal does not need to be as bad as it is, [Link: saskpower.com] and here in Quebec at the end the 60’s there were two nuclear power plants (with a third one planned) and many thermal plants. In the 70’s Quebec decided to steer towards Hydro as the main source (not because it was green but because when you factor in consumables it was cheaper I the long run) most of the electricity is Hydro, one (if needed) gas plant and it “buys” electricity from 6 hydro producers, 39 wind farms , 7 biomass and 3 biogas plants, we are also net exporters. If there is a will going green is always a possibility you just need to look at what natural resources are available in your location, look at iceleand

[Link: en.wikipedia.org]

Year	Total	Hydro	Geothermal	Fuel-Oil
2002	1,473.1	1,150.7	202.1	120.3
2012	2,658.6	1,885.1	659.0	114.5

I agree with you the electric car (or anything except for gas guzzlers) are impractical. There is a trhead on the subject in the CI lounge a long time ago and you can read a bit more of my opinion there but to keep it simple and shorty

for me for the current model I think it needs

fill up (20%-80%) “on the road” (at home L2 is good enough) : under 15 minutes – 20-80 is the normal range given because under 20 or over 80 each % tends to be longer
range : 2,000 K (might seam like a lot but charge time does not factor in weather,accessories or aging battery)
1/2 life of battery: 20 years
price of the battery: under 5k


none of those numbers are anywhere near what they need to be and if I am honest I don’t think we will get there soon plus each number negatively affects every other one, (if the battery is bigger it will need longer to charge, its 1/2 life is shorter and the price goes up.....

that is why I think the model is broken.

If you want one of my “crazy” ideas, I look at Toronto’s Tramway that has been around for over 100 years or Montreal's Metro that has been around since the early 60’s and I Think the model should not be based on the car but a hybrid between cars and what I just mentioned. Batteries are good for short distances in the city but when you go longer distances they suck, now if we electrify high ways (as they are called here) like a tram or a metro or a light rail train and the car siphons electricity as it goes now you can build an electric car with, let’s say a 100km or 200km battery and it will be practical with micro transactions for the electricity used while on the electrified roads.


agree, that is why they are future plans, that will be the next guys problem ;)


Many years ago a person would go home to home take down the numbers (on the meter outside your home)every month. next came assumed average where the person would just go once a year to read the meter and you could get a credit or pay extra depending on if you paid the right amount for the year. I have always seen it as just an other cost cutting measure. You said you take down your own numbers, but sooner or later someone would need to verify those numbers for the companyotr else an unscrupulus person could just say they use very little electricity.

Part One

I hope you don’t mind if I don’t copy everything, but I did read the rest just shortening to simplify,

Not at all.

*

First I am not the IPCC or work for them, you have to stop fighting them and bring the discussion to DJY and Anthony.

The whole issue of climate change is how the IPCC is using 'science' to promote a preferred global political agenda. Regardless of whether one believes their science to be legitimate or flawed, one cannot separate it from the argument.

*

Second you say “two imperatives of tackling world poverty and hunger;” I don’t understand how that makes them the bad guys, those sound like good goals to me.

I've made no claim about the UN's goals; they are indeed entirely desirable. It is, however, ridiculous to promote a course of action that will not only not solve those issues, it will make life worse for many millions more.

*

Thirdly I don’t get why it matters. Let me put it this way, if you have some poor hungry people in the jungle wouldn’t using the money now wasted fighting global warming to chop down the forest, build a couple of apartments, build a polluting turn of the century factory, plant some of the new fields with crops, ship stuff to and from the people working in that new “developed place” to the rest of the world do more to help those people with hunger and poverty? I don’t see any real benefit for the IPCC to create a fake boogeyman.

Then, I fear, one has no understanding of leftist ideology and its desire for control.

*

Lastly are they seeking out the evidence? I think they are but isn’t that the definition of investigating, what should they do? Turn a blind eye to it because it is an inconvenient truth?

As I said, the IPCC is a political organisation. It is not their role to be dispassionate about the evidence of climate change; they merely seek that which supports their cause. It is they who are turning a blind eye.

*

Does any of that contradict what I said or does it agree with it? It only contradicts what you think the IPPC and Santer said. The only way to be able to say it is 100% of natural causes is if somehow you could prove that it is impossible that the man made versions of the gazes can’t make it that high (while the natural vesions can) as well as at the lower level they can’t have an impact (i.e. more man made gases don’t mean more natural gases).

Uncertainty is the whole issue. As I pointed out, your 'stable' climate has undergone radical change in the past without any help from CO₂. One must also note that in a naturally warming world, atmospheric CO₂ concentration will increase due to planetary out-gassing,

It's almost universally agreed that CO₂ had no influence before the 1950s, ergo the early 20th-century warming must be the result of other factors. Similarly, if CO₂ did become a factor during the 50s, it does not explain why the global average temperature continued to fall until the end of the 1970s. Indeed, during the 70s such was the anxiety overcooling, a group of 42 scientists wrote to President Nixon to voice their concern over the possibility of the onset of a new ice age.^{1 & 2} In addition, 'Rasool & Schneider 1971':³

"...confidently announced in the early 1970s that a new ice age was coming, and that humanity would perish. According to Schneider, because of the saturation of the principal absorbing band of carbon dioxide, the rise in temperature linked to CO₂ would be no greater than 0.1 K over the next 30 years (1971 in Science, Vol. 173. pp. 138-141). However, industrial dust would so increase the opacity of the atmosphere that global temperature would fall by 3.5 K, enough 'to trigger an ice age'!"⁴

Unlike the alarmism of today, this peer-reviewed study acknowledges the self limiting effect of increasing levels of CO₂:

"It is found that, although the addition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does increase the surface temperature, the rate of temperature increase diminishes with increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."

Given the dramatic increase in world population and the advent of cheap motoring, I believe it safe to say there is an anthropogenic component buried within the present level of CO₂. I also think it reasonable to assume the increased level of atmospheric CO₂ has contributed to the late 20th-century warming (and planetary re-greening). With a rate of rise similar to that of the early 20th century, though, we cannot just arbitrarily attribute all of the late century warming to it. If such were the case, what caused the 21st century slow down/stall? As I said:

"Yes, the average global temperature has risen. Yes, CO₂ is a greenhouse gas. Yes, global atmospheric CO2 content has increased. Yes, there's likely an anthropogenic component to that increase."

However, there is no clear understanding of the size of the presumed anthropogenic component, nor is there any clear understanding of the level surface heating which can be attributed to it. Laboratory dry air experimentation can offer a clue, but dry air laboratory conditions do not replicate the dynamics of a water vapour enriched atmosphere and its weather systems. (The Charney report ponders an amplifying interaction between the two, but if such is happening it has yet to be discovered.)

With no 'smoking gun' evidence condemning CO₂ and a climate system nowhere near fully understood, the claim we can control climate by controlling atmospheric CO₂ content is dangerous hubris and little different to my speculating that attempts to do so could precipitate a counter climate crisis. Driving the planet into a Little Ice Age would be a far worse prospect than what we’re presently experiencing.

As for Santer, there is no issue of 'think' about what he did: It is a matter of record. He single-handedly altered a report highlighting the aforementioned uncertainties to one of positive attribution. In any other discipline falsifying a report would be considered gross misconduct warranting instant dismissal, if not criminal proceedings. Nothing happened. He then compounded this action, by producing a highly misleading peer-reviewed study, purportedly showing an increasing late 20th-century temperature trend, but which was, in reality, little more than an exercise in 'cherry-picked' start and end dates. Again, not only was he not disciplined, he was actually given support.

Viewed in isolation, one may consider this an aberration – albeit one which completely transformed climate science. But then we have Jonathan Overpeck bemoaning the existence of the Medieval Warming Period – and along comes Michael Mann and his hokey hockey stick graph which does away with it. The IPCC lapped it up. We then have a claque of scientists (centred around Mann) caught fudging and deleting data, and using threat and intimidation to control the climate narrative. These actions were deemed acceptable by 'investigations' so inept and cursory it gives the term whitewash a bad name. And today we have US metrological organisations systematically reshaping the American historical temperature record to allow better correlation with unverified climate model predictions. Perhaps one is more lenient, but this is not science; it is the perversion of science.

*

But you see it is not steadily.

Even though the data and IPCC agree that it is?

*

But there is. All the evidence sais the same thing, it is a matter of interpretation As to how much is man made and how much is natural. The issue I have is does it really matter ? like I said before if it is all man made then we can more easily deal with it, the more it is natural the more we need to fight nature (which should be harder).

The whole rationale for picking on CO₂ is that it's a global phenomenon requiring a global response: meat and drink for an organisation wanting global political change. The evidence that CO₂ is the problem it's claimed to be, though, is far from conclusive – hence all the shenanigans about polar bear extinction, polar ice cap collapse, accelerating sea-level rise, increased wildfires, increased weather event severity, the denigration of those who disagree, threats to the livelihoods of those who dare to do so, the shameless use of a credulous teenager etc. etc.

And if CO₂ isn't the problem the IPCC would have us believe it is, what do you propose we do – modify the ocean and air currents, change our orbital trajectory, put a large UV filter between us and the sun? Sorry, but the idea of combating nature, in this regard, is even more absurd than trying to restrict/reduce CO₂ emissions.


[1]

[2]

[3] [Link: science.sciencemag.org]

[4] [Link: amazon.co.uk]

djy:

Really? A letter from 1972? Science ain't like religion. It's self-correcting. So you need to go by today's evidence. Religion, or any other dogma, stays the same (dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb).

"So you need to go by today's evidence."

Indeed, but today's evidence in 1972 was that the world was on the brink of a new ice age, or does one not understand context?

You have a very strange definition for the word "Today". It's like you've gone all Flux Capacitor on me.

Your inability to understand concepts, reason, logic, context and argument in combination with several psychological defence mechanisms (denial, delusion, projection, illusory superiority and plain old Dunning-Kruger stupidity), does make for a truly impressive CV. Then there's what I term 'intellectual' masochism - the delusional belief one is making a valid point, but is in reality is merely highlighting one's own nonsensical contradictory thinking. Let's take, for example this:

"Really? A letter from 1972? Science ain't like religion. It's self-correcting. So you need to go by today's evidence. Religion, or any other dogma, stays the same (dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb)."

There was, of course, a time when science was indeed spelt C-h-u-r-c-h, but being in denial of history, one probably doesn't appreciate this. It is not, however, I who is dogmatically claiming: "THIS SHIP HAS SAILED." You then compound this contradiction by proclaiming: "It's self-correcting", which, indeed, correctly implies that science is always in a state of flux; i.e. constantly changing, or in your vernacular the ship may have sailed, but it's still subject to constant course corrections. This is evidenced by the change in thinking from that of the 70's, though it appears your limited cognitive skills are unable to appreciate the significance; that it has also changed since Hansen gave his infamous testimony in the late 80s.

You claim the ship has sailed, then contradict this by claiming science is self-correcting, but are also in complete denial of the evidence of 'today’. A clearer case of cognitive dissonance would be hard to find. Projecting your irrational thoughts onto others merely compounds the stupidity. As you say:

"Religion, or any other dogma, stays the same (dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb)."

You never change, and in doing so never cease to provide amusement.

Part Two


 

 

 
 
 

 
I'm afraid you’ve not grasped my point.  My example of seasonal variation was to highlight the enormity of natural variability.  It's completely beyond our control, hence the focus on CO₂ and the other greenhouse gases.
 
 

 
Yes, natural variability can have a profound effect during interglacials (as per the Andy May graphics).  There may be warm periods, there may be cold, but there's no such thing as ultra-warm periods.  There are, however, ultra cold periods: glacials.  A cold period during an interglacial may cause severe hardship to millions, but glacials are civilisation killers.

As for not wanting to rush back to warmer climes, what profoundly negative effect has the slightly warmer world had? The bogeymen being spouted by the IPCC and MSM are just that and no more (as previously demonstrated) and other indices such as poverty, lifespan, planetary greening, agricultural production etc. all show positive gains.



 
Because, as the evidence shows, there is no such thing.
 
 

 
I'm afraid you’re comparing apples to oranges.  In Earth's atmosphere the relationship of CO₂ to temperature is firstly logarithmic (for every degree of temperature rise requires a doubling of CO₂) and secondly, when it reaches saturation point temperature rise stops.  The Earth's atmosphere can never replicate that of Venus.¹
 
 

 
If, as the IPCC would have us believe, CO₂ is the primary driver of climate change, then does it not follow that dabbling could have profound, unknown counter effects?
 
The above, of course, is pure speculation, but the reality is that the full mind boggling complexity of the climate system is unknown and may, indeed, remain so.  Literature I’ve previously linked to covers this issue.  The thoughts of Dr Mototaka Nakamura may also be worth a read.²
 
 

 
My apologies, but my response to the loser comment was such because it implies I've not given due consideration to either the science of climate change or the proposals being set forth to 'combat' it.  I believe my response indicates not only that I have, but that from my perspective the arguments for action simply do not add up.
 
From the outset the IPCC have been seen to promulgate fear and uncertainty with increasingly strident doom laden scenarios.  In doing so they turned a blind eye to outrageous behaviour, accepted at face value 'scientific' studies which at best are shockingly poor and at worst fraudulent and, more tellingly, have ignored compelling evidence to the contrary.
 
As previously commented, we've now had 30 years of 10 years to save the planet, but the 'reality' is that little has changed.  Thus in fear of a further 10 years of nothing happening completely undermining the alarmist rhetoric, agencies have now stooped to brazenly rewriting the US historical temperature database, made claims about sea-level rise, severe weather events and wildfires which bear absolutely no scrutiny, and engaged the services of a cosseted and emotionally unstable teenager to rally the gullible young (who, ironically, have experienced virtually no climate change) into supporting a political agenda that will make their live far worse than doing nothing.  In this regard, I believe your saying the following...

"And yes maybe it will be futile and we can't make a difference. But you know what IMHO only losers give-up before even trying so, yeah if we can try and keep it stable by helping mother nature or working against it then I say let's go for it."

...is indeed a knee jerk reaction for it takes no account of the emotional, social, and financial hardship wrought upon those being expected to pay for this agenda.  Impoverishing a country merely to claim the moral high ground is plain madness and will solve nothing.
 


This may sound heartless, but in building within a floodplain, as with building alongside a river, one has to accept the risk of flooding.  Locally, the relatively recent Fryers Gate apartment block has somewhat mitigated the problem by building on stilts.
 
‪‬
 
As for the BBC link, I'm afraid that after 28gate I give little credence to their output.  A hyped story of a glacier doing what glaciers have done since time immemorial (retreat or grown depending upon conditions) is hardly front page news.  I believe Anthony Watts offers a more balanced view.³



I think my quote has been taken a little out of context insofar as the fear the Met Office is trying to invoke is to bolster demands for political action.  I don't believe UK summers are particularly different, as my comparison between this year’s summer and that of 1976 demonstrates.  Winter's, however, have become noticeably milder, which I'm none too concerned about given the parlous state of the National Grid.
 
Yes, in some areas weather systems, and thus climate, may have changed, but which course of action do you think the more logical?  Adapting by building a larger pond, or spending trillions, impoverishing millions, in the unproven hope your friend doesn't have to?



Once again I fear one has not fully engaged with the enormity of the CCC's proposals and the cost to the consumer.
 
Quebec has a population of circa 8.5m and covers an area of almost 600,000 square miles.  The UK has population of 67.5m and covers an area of 93,500 square miles.  The scale of energy demand and supply are by several orders of magnitude greater.  Indeed, such is the population density of Quebec, little old backwaters Hereford would rank 10th in a list of Quebec's Largest Metropolitan Areas.  (Little known factoid.  With so many French ex-pats living there, London would rank 6th or 7th in a list of the largest French cities.)
 
I think it only logical governments would prioritise the use local resources for generating power.  In this regard, the UK has barely any hydro and no geothermal.  What it does have is North Sea natural gas, thought that's now significantly diminished,⁴ and coal.  (See the GridWatch website for the complete breakdown of generation fuel types.)  For continued use, both would require the installation of CCS.
 
As for CCS, the SaskPower project you linked to cost $1.5b Canadian (£925m), for a risible output of 115MW, and it's operating history is nothing like as good as suggested:

"In 2015, internal documents from SaskPower revealed that there were 'serious design issues' in the carbon capture system, resulting in regular breakdowns and maintenance problems that led the unit to only be operational 40% of the time. SNC-Lavalin had been contracted to engineer, procure, and build the facility, and the documents asserted that it 'has neither the will or the ability to fix some of these fundamental flaws.'"⁵

And units 4 and 5 are not going to be converted as gas is cheaper:

In July 2018, SaskPower announced that it would not retrofit Units 4 and 5 with CCS, with minister responsible Dustin Duncan saying that the units were approaching their mandated shut down in 2024 and that natural gas is a cheaper option.⁵

CCS on the scale imagined by the CCC is still a pipe-dream and renewables are no replacement for present dispatchable generation. 



For as long as climate change has been an issue there has been a campaign to provide Hereford with a bypass.  No, no, say those against the proposal, we should be investing in walking, cycling and public transport.  Follow the Dutch example.  Then I point out it was the advent of cheap motoring which saw the demise of public transport and that the Dutch example didn't just happen, it required significant infrastructural changes.
 
By proportion, the number of EVs in the UK, even with government incentives, is tiny.  When reality finally dawns, I believe the forcing of change to electric will, by itself, be the cause of significant social unrest – between those who can/cannot afford to buy one and those who can/cannot afford to charge the thing.  Perhaps we should follow the latest Dutch example.⁶



Ben Pile has written two astute pieces on the madness, here⁷ and here.⁸ Sample:

"Many are also of the view that ‪NZ2050‬ will require a dramatic transformation and undermining of our ways of life. Over the next 30 years, it will create burdens greater than anything the EU ever managed to impose on the population of Europe. Moreover, ‘leading the world in setting a net zero target’ seems to be intended to create a more massive, inflexible global bureaucracy than anything any European federalist ever imagined. What is the point of leaving the EU only to foist on Britain and the world another monolith that denies nation states democratic self-determination?”

I rest my case m’lud.⁹

[1] [Link: realclimatescience.com]
[2] [Link: notrickszone.com]
[3] [Link: wattsupwiththat.com]
[4] [Link: britishgas.co.uk]
[5] [Link: en.wikipedia.org]
[6] [Link: breitbart.com]
[7] [Link: conservativewoman.co.uk]
[8] [Link: conservativewoman.co.uk]
[9] [Link: notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com]

I'm so tired of this climate debate. Enough already. The science is settled, we're all gonna die.

But before we all die, I hope you can help me understand whether the Earth is flat, or if it's a round, global-shaped thingy. If I recall, about 97% of scientists claim it's a globe. What say you?

It is revealing that you can’t discuss science but play some sort of word games pretty well.

Oh, I can discuss science up and down and back again. But, like I've mentioned more than once on this thread, this topic has been discussed to death. It's revealing that you can't seem to understand that this issue has been debated to death and that there is one, and only one, clear way to interpret the data. Any thing else is like arguing about a flat Earth.

Oh, I can discuss science up and down and back again.
And yet you never have.

But, like I've mentioned more than once on this thread, this topic has been discussed to death.
Clearly it hasn't, for if it had you wouldn't need be here to tell us so.

It's revealing that you can't seem to understand that this issue has been debated to death and that there is one, and only one, clear way to interpret the data.
Clearly there isn't only just one way to interpret the data, for it that were the case the issue would resolved itself long before now by the polar ice caps having disappeared, sea-level rise inundating costal regions etc.

Any thing else is like arguing about a flat Earth.
Then why keep returning here repeating your baseless claims, when by doing reveals yourself to have no understanding of the science, no understanding of the data and, most tellingly, no argument?

…we're all gonna die.
The most accurate thing you've ever said, but I think we can safely assume it's not the sole preserve of climate change.

So, you're saying that the Earth IS flat?

Wow

Regardless of whether one believes their science to be legitimate or flawed, one cannot separate it from the argument.



there is an expression, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Some will look at the clock and say "it says 11:55, so that must be the time", others will look at the clock and say "it says 11:55 and since it is usually wrong it must be wrong again and so it is not 11:55". IMHOP if you have an issue with the broken clock look at a different clock that is not broken and it will be better able to tell you what time it really is.



I've made no claim about the UN's goals; they are indeed entirely desirable. It is, however, ridiculous to promote a course of action that will not only not solve those issues, it will make life worse for many millions more.


But that is exactly the point, your comments have an axiomatic contradiction in them. it is ridiculous if they are trying to pull a fast one (help the poor and hungry by complaining about a made up global warming issue) it is not ridiculous if
a) they are not trying to help the poor and hungry or
b) they (rightly or wrongly) believe GW is a real issue.

Then, I fear, one has no understanding of leftist ideology and its desire for control.

please explain.

As I said, the IPCC is a political organisation. It is not their role to be dispassionate about the evidence of climate change; they merely seek that which supports their cause. It is they who are turning a blind eye.



but you said earlier that it does not support their cause

Uncertainty is the whole issue. As I pointed out, your 'stable' climate has undergone radical change in the past without any help from CO₂. One must also note that in a naturally warming world, atmospheric CO₂ concentration will increase due to planetary out-gassing



but so are mass extinctions, destruction of quality of life, famine and plagues.

"Yes, the average global temperature has risen. Yes, CO₂ is a greenhouse gas. Yes, global atmospheric CO2 content has increased. Yes, there's likely an anthropogenic component to that increase."
However, there is no clear understanding of the size of the presumed anthropogenic component, nor is there any clear understanding of the level surface heating which can be attributed to it.

agree and that was the point I made earlier on I don't think it is 100% man made and I don't think we can ever say it is x% man made and y% natural. But that some of it is man made makes a huge difference IMHO. llet me put it this way, my friends house that got flooded was at the outer reach of the flooding, his house has a few steps in front, if there was just a bit more water his first floor would have been ruined as well and if there was just a bit less water his house would have been spared, it is not an all or nothing thing but a matter of degrees and if we add to those degrees we are the ones making it worst.

And if CO₂ isn't the problem the IPCC would have us believe it is, what do you propose we do

fight it anyways because it is part of the problem, you agreed to it several words earlier in this exact post

modify the ocean and air currents, change our orbital trajectory, put a large UV filter between us and the sun? Sorry, but the idea of combating nature, in this regard, is even more absurd than trying to restrict/reduce CO₂ emissions.

why is it straw man with you did I say any of that absurd stuff. We have been reshaping and changing the world for thousands of years, from waterways being artificially routed for irrigation and transportations to the Netherlands where at this point 1/3 the country is technically below sea level.