Is there any real science?

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.

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

Bumped down

In other words no you can't.

Bumped back up.

The problem with your theory is that it assumes solar variations are the only factor affecting climate change.

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".

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?

The problem with your theory is that it assumes solar variations are the only factor affecting climate change.

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

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.

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.

...and vice versa.

Now what we see is a pretty good correlation between solar activity and the temperature of the earth. We know the sun actually produces heat, so we have a mechanistic relationship between the sun and the warmth of the earth. If we are going to say that something else causes global warming then we need to eliminate the sun as the cause. Which we cannot do.

so unless we eliminate the sun as the cause, you will refuse to believe that something else is causing global warming? So are you saying that there cannot be a cumulative effect with the sun and other inputs?

In your survey the climate scientists were not asked how much of a contribution they thought CO2 made to the current warming. There is general agreement amongst almost everyone that CO2 has some effect. It is the extent of that effect versus the normal natural warming which we KNOW has happened before in the absence of human generated CO2 that is the question.

Your surveys, even though they are opinions rather than fact, do not change this.

Let us put it another way. We KNOW that the earth can warm through entirely natural causes, because it has done so, even before humans evolved. We do NOT know that the earth can warm simply as a result of a bit of extra atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Sufficient Straw Men arguments here to build a largish haystack.