Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8331676)

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8331736)

1. It is absolutely accepted by everyone, except Lord Farquar, that the thousands of climate changes which occurred in the last couple of billion years were a result of natural processes, most likely, in most cases, changes in energy output from the sun, but occasionally from geological events such as massive volcanoes etc.

Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar (Post 8331748)

Can you point out to me where I said all climatic changes were a result of human activity? I would be very interested to know.

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8331755)

I afraid I can't actually point out where you said anything useful at all. I'm sorry to say.

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8331776)

So the Nature sceptics are quiet. Let's sum up:

1. It is absolutely accepted by everyone, including, but not definitely, Lord farquar, that the thousands of climate changes which occurred in the last couple of billion years were a result of natural processes, most likely, in most cases, changes in energy output from the sun, but occasionally from geological events such as massive volcanoes etc.

2. A bunch of "climate scientists" who until now have received low funding and have never been asked for an opinion on anything before and have been generally unloved, say that our current warming is due entirely to human activity, giving them instant fame, funding and recognition as being valuable people.

3. The sun, which has caused, by general agreement, almost all of the Earth's previous climate changes, has been much more active in the last 50 years than in the preceding 1000. But, say the climate scientists, it has no effect on this one.

So let us put forward some questions:

If climate changes are normally caused by the sun, then it is incumbent upon anyone who proposes a different cause to completely eliminate the sun as a possible cause. Which, in my view, is a bit tricky considering the recent high solar activity.

If, and only if, the sun is eliminated as the main cause of our global warming, THEN they have to come up with a substantially better argument that CO2 rather than any other cause is responsible than the current one, which appears to amount to: "Because it's there".

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8331665)

And doesn't prove that AGW is occuring, only that they like it being there because it attracts research funding. Shall we stick to the science rather than opinion polls?

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8331799)

So the Nature sceptics are quiet. Let's sum up:

1. It is absolutely accepted by everyone, including, but not definitely, Lord farquar, that the thousands of climate changes which occurred in the last couple of billion years were a result of natural processes, most likely, in most cases, changes in energy output from the sun, but occasionally from geological events such as massive volcanoes etc.

2. A bunch of "climate scientists" who until now have received low funding and have never been asked for an opinion on anything before and have been generally unloved, say that our current warming is due entirely to human activity, giving them instant fame, funding and recognition as being valuable people.

3. The sun, which has caused, by general agreement, almost all of the Earth's previous climate changes, has been much more active in the last 50 years than in the preceding 1000. But, say the climate scientists, it has no effect on this one.

So let us put forward some questions:

If climate changes are normally caused by the sun, then it is incumbent upon anyone who proposes a different cause to completely eliminate the sun as a possible cause. Which, in my view, is a bit tricky considering the recent high solar activity.

If, and only if, the sun is eliminated as the main cause of our global warming, THEN they have to come up with a substantially better argument that CO2 rather than any other cause is responsible than the current one, which appears to amount to: "Because it's there".

Originally Posted by iolande (Post 8331803)

And yet it doesn't prove it isn't occurring! Why are you so stubbornly insisting on proof yet cannot give definitive proof of AGW not occurring?

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8331811)

Because there is nothing to indicate that it is not completely natural, which you appear to be incapable of accepting. Who said I was incapable of accepting? I just don't know enough either way to make a judgement. What I will do is question what is being said by a number of people.Which is more likely, that global warming is occuring the same way it's always done for millions of years, or that suddenly the natural method no longer works and it must be caused by humans? Or one of millions of other options. I don't believe this issue is at all that black and white.

I have no objection to the idea that a small additive effect is produced by a bit more CO2 in the atmosphere. But until someone proves that it is the only cause and that it is catastrophic I 'm happy with the proposition that the climate has changed naturally before, it can therefore do so again. A Catastrophe is a high bar to set beyond proof that is happening

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8331811)

Because there is nothing to indicate that it is not completely natural, which you appear to be incapable of accepting.

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8331676)

Originally Posted by iolande (Post 8331826)

Beyond that, a number of times in this debate you have either dismissed issues (like climate scientists can't not be used for information as they have muddied interests) and you have rejected any repudiation of your theory. Yet at the same time ask for others to prove you wrong. It's a catch-22 discussing this under those terms.

Originally Posted by Burbage (Post 8331799)

So the Nature sceptics are quiet. Let's sum up:

1. It is absolutely accepted by everyone, including, but not definitely, Lord farquar, that the thousands of climate changes which occurred in the last couple of billion years were a result of natural processes, most likely, in most cases, changes in energy output from the sun, but occasionally from geological events such as massive volcanoes etc.

2. A bunch of "climate scientists" who until now have received low funding and have never been asked for an opinion on anything before and have been generally unloved, say that our current warming is due entirely to human activity, giving them instant fame, funding and recognition as being valuable people.

3. The sun, which has caused, by general agreement, almost all of the Earth's previous climate changes, has been much more active in the last 50 years than in the preceding 1000. But, say the climate scientists, it has no effect on this one.

So let us put forward some questions:

If climate changes are normally caused by the sun, then it is incumbent upon anyone who proposes a different cause to completely eliminate the sun as a possible cause. Which, in my view, is a bit tricky considering the recent high solar activity.

If, and only if, the sun is eliminated as the main cause of our global warming, THEN they have to come up with a substantially better argument that CO2 rather than any other cause is responsible than the current one, which appears to amount to: "Because it's there".