Sensationalism

[said]

No one denies the earths climate has always changed with many heating and cooling events in its history. The Sun, Orbital forcing and C02 levels have been among the primary drivers in the past.
But in the here and now the records show that the last few thousand years the carbon cycle has been in relative equilibrium, with the C02 produced by nature being absorbed back by natural carbon sinks.
However the C02 produced by man in not being fully absorbed back into nature and this addition is accumulating in the atmosphere leading to warming. This warming is then amplified by positive feedback mechanisms (water vapor, Albedo effect etc).
So your point that the climate has always changed is redundant.

If your claims are correct, then the massive volume of CO2 produced through two world wars would have caused a massive climate change - the fact that they did not, makes your theory redundant.

The carbon sinks that you refer to are indeed important absorbers of carbon dioxides, however - it would appear that while the local councils are enthusiastically adopting the Global Warming theory, they have little interest in maintaining plant and tree life to support their sympathies. De-forestation is incurring world wide, trees and plants absorb Carbon Dioxide and sunlight to photosynthesise, huge areas are losing plant life due to building projects - Germany has obliterated several villages in Western Germany to create one of the largest coal mines ever known, Gurzweiler in Western Germany - so just how serious are these Global Warming scaremongers?

The Global Warming predictions are based on a computerised model - the Kyoto Model. This programme ignores the Thermohaline current, it ignores the eleven year sun spot cycle and even the Earth's ice ages - it uses the previous eighty year factors only. This model is unable to predict the past climates that we have experienced - so how can it possibly predict the future climates. There is not a computer that can compute all the factors of the World's climate - predictions are made on a limited number of variables only.

Your post refers to Water Vapour and the Albedo Effect - Water vapour is in itself a Green house gas, a fact that is often conveniently ignored in many climate studies. The Albedo Effect can have a positive or a negative effect on Climate change. If the sun's rays are reflected from a white surface i.e. snow or ice, then the heat from the sun is reflected back into the atmosphere - but if the sun's heat is reflected from carbon particulates, the particulates absorb the heat of the sun. However, the Albedo Effect is dependant on just as many factors as the climate is.

[Toodles McGinty]

As Forbes reports "Another interesting aspect of this new survey is that it reports on the beliefs of scientists themselves rather than bureaucrats who often publish alarmist statements without polling their member scientists. We now have meteorologists, geoscientists and engineers all reporting that they are sceptics of an asserted global warming crisis, yet the bureaucrats of these organizations frequently suck up to the media and suck up to government grant providers by trying to tell us the opposite of what their scientist members actually believe."
.

That's an op/ed piece that wasn't a survey, and they were not scientists:

https://jadehawks.wordpress.com/2013...agw-denialism/

While we are referring to other articles, here's one that refutes the Daily Express Guide to Climate Change Deniers:

https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/s...l-warming.html

I suppose the world is flat, too?

[said]

That's an op/ed piece that wasn't a survey, and they were not scientists:

https://jadehawks.wordpress.com/2013...agw-denialism/

While we are referring to other articles, here's one that refutes the Daily Express Guide to Climate Change Deniers:

https://www.newscientist.com/blogs/s...l-warming.html

I suppose the world is flat, too?

Whatever you read in the media, whatever you hear on the media - there is a hell of a lot of money to be made out of Global Warming. Just remember that CO2 is not a pollutant - it is necessary for all of nature. I am right! Trust me.

[Nick2]

Whatever you read in the media, whatever you hear on the media - there is a hell of a lot of money to be made out of Global Warming. Just remember that CO2 is not a pollutant - it is necessary for all of nature. I am right! Trust me.

Anything (including CO2) can be deemed a pollutant in the wrong concentration, whether it's naturally occurring, or not. So you're wrong again and, it would seem, quite untrustworthy.

[Albion102]

If your claims are correct, then the massive volume of CO2 produced through two world wars would have caused a massive climate change - the fact that they did not, makes your theory redundant.

There was a spike in CO2 production in WW2, however the population (and industrialisation) was less than a 3rd of what it is now. There were less than a 10th of the motor vehicles that exist today. You might like to speculate how much deforestation has taken place, worldwide, in that period.

The leading paper on WW2 CO2 and how it disproves global warning was written by a petroleum industry lawyer, not a scientist. The impact of WW2, whilst significant at the time, would not be significant now.