I hope the Climate Activists are proud of the effect their lies are having on the younger generation

Pass me the tinfoil hat

We really did ought to wait until we are 100% sure - OK 99.9% - that mankind is causing climate change before we make any changes in our behaviour at enormous economic cost

dcbwhaley: 
 

We really did ought to wait until we are 100% sure - OK 99.9% - that mankind is causing climate change before we make any changes in our behaviour at enormous economic cost

Absolutely correct, if it were true, I'd be the first in the queue to act on AGW CO2, but only if it was wholly proven to be the control knob for the current phase of global warming. (incidentally the pause in warming is now 6 years and 9 months old). So much for rising AGW CO2 linked to global warming!

The green agenda will bring serious social problems, what with our joke of an energy system in the UK, skyrocketing gas prices meaning heating or eating, government solution being to chuck more tax payers cash at the needy, while adding more green tax to our energy bills to pay for this and yet more proposed subsidised farming of wind/solar.

The only solution if we do not want to burn our reliable fossil fuels  is Small Modular Nuclear Reactors. Simple as that. Everyone is happy, well almost everyone..

dcbwhaley: 
 

Pass me the tinfoil hat

You'll need the extra thick stuff to stop this ‘unprecidented’ level of brainwashing going on today!

If you're going to point a finger…

Sunday morning read…

Maurice Strong, Climate Crook – Quadrant Online

dcbwhaley: 
 

We really did ought to wait until we are 100% sure - OK 99.9% - that mankind is causing climate change….

Um, we are very much 100% certain. The (technical part of the) discussion here has been about the extent of anthropogenic effects, not whether there are any.

Besides, this kind of thinking is no longer generally considered appropriate in this context . Health, medicine, engineering safety, and now parts of climate science have been based for a long time on the notion of risk. 

Let us suppose you smoke cigarettes. Then there is a one in two chance you will die from a disease strongly causally related to your smoking. It is not certain. You might be like ex-Chancellor Helmut Schmidt and chain smoke well into your mid-nineties before keeling over. It is also not certain that you will suffer a myocardial infarction. It is not certain that you will contract lung cancer. But the chances are enormously raised. 

Safety engineering has been based on the identification and assessment of risk and its mitigation for a quarter century. 

Of course, one of the encouragements for basing reasoning on risk was the argument from tobacco companies, similar to yours, that it wasn't certain that smoking caused ill health and it was inappropriate to take legal measures against use of their product until it was. People ultimately did not agree with that proposal, and neither did health-insurance companies in the places where people need health insurance, and people such as myself are now very thankful that we can go about our daily lives without having to encounter tobacco smoke. 

Peter Bernard Ladkin: 
 

dcbwhaley: 
 

We really did ought to wait until we are 100% sure - OK 99.9% - that mankind is causing climate change….

Um, we are very much 100% certain. The (technical part of the) discussion here has been about the extent of anthropogenic effects, not whether there are any.

Besides, this kind of thinking is no longer generally considered appropriate in this context . Health, medicine, engineering safety, and now parts of climate science have been based for a long time on the notion of risk. 

Um. I disagree.

Roger has given you enough facts and figures to totally discredit your thinking.

Peter Bernard Ladkin:
Safety engineering has been based on the identification and assessment of risk and its mitigation for a quarter century.

No doubt, and rightly so, but let us not forget the ALARP principle employed in decision making processes related to safety critical systems. Considering the unsettled science and observations far from supporting the "climate crisis" beyond any doubt, the focus in "as low as reasonably practicable" in case of climate related restrictive measures should be on "reasonably".

Let us suppose you smoke cigarettes. Then there is a one in two chance you will die from a disease strongly causally related to your smoking. It is not certain.

I would suggest that empirical evidence at relating smoking to various health issues is much stronger than in case of identifying CO2 as the main driver of climate change. Nevertheless, regardless of known detrimental health effects of smoking, we do not hear any government battle cries for fully eradicating smoking - there is no money in it, quite the opposite (lost taxes). Even the green people seem to remain silent, overlooking the fact that particles and tar emitted within cigarette smoke are much worse than associated CO2. I have seen many climate cult followers smoking; a nasty habit, indeed ;)

Regarding the extent of anthropogenic effects on climate: professor Ross McKitrick has recently published an article "The IPCC’s attribution methodology is fundamentally flawed" that refers to his paper in Climate Dynamics criticising the math behind “Optimal Fingerprinting” methodology relied upon at attributing climate change to greenhouse gases. It was peer reviewed and not refuted, even recommended by at least one of the AT99 authors. He concludes:

"The AR6 Summary paragraph A.1 upgrades IPCC confidence in attribution to “Unequivocal” and the press release boasts of “major advances in the science of attribution.” In reality, for the past 20 years, the climatology profession has been oblivious to the errors in AT99, and untroubled by the complete absence of specification testing in the subsequent fingerprinting literature. These problems mean there is no basis for treating past attribution results based on the AT99 method as robust or valid."

Jon Steward: 

dcbwhaley: 
 

[] We really did ought to wait until we are 100% sure - OK 99.9% - that mankind is causing climate change….

Um, we are very much 100% certain. The (technical part of the) discussion here has been about the extent of anthropogenic effects, not whether there are any.

Um. I disagree.

Oh dear! I didn't think I would have to spell it out in detail for this audience, but here goes. 

Proof.

Your house has heating, very likely gas, or oil, or electricity, and of course formerly there was coal. Using any of these to heat your house has resulted and results in production of gases and aerosols, amongst them unavoidably greenhouse gases, notably CO2.

Cars and trucks travel along the road outside your house. Except for the electric ones, of which there won't be many, they produce CO2 and NO2, unavoidably, each and every one.

The farm animals, the cows, in the field behind your house produce CH4.

In the past (and much more than in the present), humans have discharged CFCs into the atmosphere (as I have noted before).

All these are greenhouse gases being produced by human activity. QED.

The question concerns the extent of the effects of this production, not whether it exists.

Roger has given you enough facts and figures to totally discredit your thinking.

Actually, the facts and figures given come all out of public documents. What he has been trying to do is show how these somehow don't fit together.  Let's list what I think have been the issues.

He wants to say that the contribution of anthropogenic CO2 production to the greenhouse effect of CO2 in our current atmosphere is negligible. He hasn't produced any argument for that, let alone any figures - he's just said it. (I can say “2+2=5” - it doesn't make it so.) For actual figures, one can look in any reputable textbook on climate. Say, Barry and Chorley, continuously in print since 1968, when questions about anthropogenic climate change were just starting to arise (my edition is the 6th, from 1992. I understand they are up to the 9th now). 

Roger contradicts Karoly and Stott's description of the CET figures as showing a 1° rise since 1950. Given that this is one data set, either K&S are right, or Roger is right, but not both. As far as I see, K&S's description is right. That means Roger is wrong. 

He compares some graphs from AR5 and AR6 which purport to show more or less the same thing. He has asserted they are different, and contradict each other. I don't see that; they look very similar to me.

He seems to want to say that northern-hemispherical phenomena, resp. southern-hemispherical effects are not “global”. If he wants to say that, fine, that is just a matter of how one uses words, not any fact about our globe or how its climate is changing.

He doesn't like the “hockey stick”. As far as I can tell, that is one of the most queried, recalculated and reproduced pieces of data research in the whole field of climate science. There might be quibbles about parts of it. But I don't any technical reason to reject it completely, as he does, and he hasn't given any.

And then he has criticised the presentation of a graph because of a labelling of an axis, which I find trivial.

Have I missed anything?

Peter,

The message you are trying to get across seems rather confused. As I understand we are talking about AGW, Anthropogenic GLOBAL Warming. This has many events attributed to it all around the globe, melting ice at both poles, destruction of the great barrier reef, wild fires in the USA and Australia, floods everywhere.

If, as we are told, CO2 is the driver it will take place all over the world. The OCO-2 satellite was launched in 2014 to measure global CO2 levels. The early measurements showed higher concentrations in the southern hemisphere, not what climate science wanted to see, so it is currently somewhat in the background. If, as you propose, AGW is a northern hemisphere phenomena why are the levels higher in the south than the north?

https://ocov2.jpl.nasa.gov/

As I have said before interesting though the CET series is it is definitely not global.  The temperature rise between 1950 and 2000 in the northern hemisphere is not global. If CO2 is the driver why are we not seeing the same phenomena globally?

Do you accept that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age existed and were of sufficient magnitude to be recorded? I agree the magnitude is difficult to determine accurately, but to cause a noticeable effect it is very likely to have been more than 1°C. it is also difficult to determine if they were global or not as there were very few records of southern hemisphere climate during that period. If CO2/Greenhouse Gasses were the cause, where did they come from? If they were not the cause and the MWP and LIA were caused by natural variations/cycles then these must be at least as large as is proposed for the current AGW effect. This does not agree with current AGW dogma so they were just wiped from the record as just local phenomena.

If the AGW dogma ignores one local phenomena because it doesn’t agree with their models  but accepts another because it does it is just that, dogma, not science.

You are surely not seriously trying to suggest that a scale of a graph has been chosen in AR6 to mislead people? I would think most of the people bothering to try to read AR6 have known how to read 2D Cartesian graphs since their teens.

If you go back to the reason I started this thread the AGW dogma requires ‘scary’ graphs to display in newspapers and on Extinction Rebellion and Fridays for Future websites. That is exactly why the adjust the scaling to justify ‘we are all going to burn’. These graphs are not targeted at people who understand science, they are there to be copied and justified with an IPCC title.