How could you "prove" man made global warming isn't happening?

[EternalOptimist]

Great.
Now it seems to me if you discount the nutters, the cretins, some journalists, the oil industry and most importantly several shadowy foundations like the Heartland Institute and Lord Lawson's GWPF (as an aside I just note that it is in Israel's interest that oil remains as a central plank of Western interests otherwise they may be abandoned to their fate in the Middle east), then there is certainly some evidence that man is affecting climate for the worse.
That is not to say that the theory of AGW has been "proved", as I've mentioned it can never be (there are cretins who claim this on the AGW side), but that the balance of evidence suggests that there is a correlation between CO2 and rising temperatures.
Now if some bright spark wants to win to the Nobel, they simply have to provide evidence that this linkage is not true/CO2 is a confounding variable/weather is getting colder globally* long term/there are no extreme climatic effects globally.
The latter 2 will be empirically verifiable in 10-20 years.

*I add this for the cretins who can't separate local effects from the global.

and there, in a nutshell, are the spoutings of a true ignoramus.

noone, ever, has claimed that CO2 will not raise the temperature of the planet.
Noone, ever, has claimed that the extra bit than man produces will not warm the planet a little bit more.

cretin

[Mich the Tester]

there is certainly some evidence that man is affecting climate for the worse.

There is indeed some evidence to support that. What concerns me is that the belief or non-belief in AGW seems to be very much split between righties who generally don't believe it and lefties who generally do, with a very small number of exceptions on both sides. That suggests to me that many people are letting their political preference decide their opinion on a matter of the natural sciences, which looks to me to be the wrong way around.

In the social sciences (difficult to draw the line, I know), it's perhaps more difficult to avoid interpreting observations through the framework of one's political or social ideals, but it shouldn't be difficult in matters like this. 'Righties' can spend their time railing against the AGW 'scare', or could actually figure out how to make some dosh from reducing CO2 emissions or fossil fuel use. The smart ones already do.

[DimPrawn]

If I piss in the sea I raise the ammonia level a bit, but will it destroy the world?

[Mich the Tester]

If I piss in the sea I raise the ammonia level a bit, but will it destroy the world?

It won't taste very nice for any passing prawn.

[Paddy]

If I piss in the sea I raise the ammonia level a bit, but will it destroy the world?

Seaside water sports

[DodgyAgent]

Great.
Now it seems to me if you discount the nutters, the cretins, some journalists, the oil industry and most importantly several shadowy foundations like the Heartland Institute and Lord Lawson's GWPF (as an aside I just note that it is in Israel's interest that oil remains as a central plank of Western interests otherwise they may be abandoned to their fate in the Middle east), then there is certainly some evidence that man is affecting climate for the worse.
That is not to say that the theory of AGW has been "proved", as I've mentioned it can never be (there are cretins who claim this on the AGW side), but that the balance of evidence suggests that there is a correlation between CO2 and rising temperatures.
Now if some bright spark wants to win to the Nobel, they simply have to provide evidence that this linkage is not true/CO2 is a confounding variable/weather is getting colder globally* long term/there are no extreme climatic effects globally.
The latter 2 will be empirically verifiable in 10-20 years.

*I add this for the cretins who can't separate local effects from the global.

Whether you are right or not the net effect is that a political battle is being fought over money. Your lot - the believers want the rest of us to fork out vast amounts of money into institutions (of which they are mostly the beneficiaries) which will supposedly put an end to CO2 emissions.
Most of us can see through this so we resist it and the net effect is that we now question:

1. Whether enough man made CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere to cause climate change
2. Whether man can actually do anything about it
3. How do we buy shares in a wind turbine business.

Any truth or objectivity in the debate about man made climate change has been lost to the political and financial agendas of everyone involved.

[EternalOptimist]

Whether you are right or not the net effect is that a political battle is being fought over money. Your lot - the believers want the rest of us to fork out vast amounts of money into institutions (of which they are mostly the beneficiaries) which will supposedly put an end to CO2 emissions.
Most of us can see through this so we resist it and the net effect is that we now question:

1. Whether enough man made CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere to cause climate change
2. Whether man can actually do anything about it
3. How do we buy shares in a wind turbine business.

Any truth or objectivity in the debate about man made climate change has been lost to the political and financial agendas of everyone involved.

aye. there is a lot of truth in that.

plus the amount of money that the EU has wasted on this scare is enough to have provided clean drinking water for every child on the planet.

thats the greenies for you eh ?

[sasguru]

Your lot - the believers want the rest of us to fork out vast amounts of money into institutions (of which they are mostly the beneficiaries) which will supposedly put an end to CO2 emissions.
.

Must be nice to live in your cartoon black and white world.
Which "lot" would you class insurers as?

In any case while you poorly educated, low IQ cretins spout bollux on t'net the smart money has already moved on.

[DimPrawn]

Add in cutting down vast areas of rain forests to grow crops for bio-fuels, pushing up the prices of basic foodstuffs as farmers make more money from bio-fuels.

The AGW plot is far from green. The only green is the dollar bills lining pockets.

[Mich the Tester]

Which "lot" would you class insurers as?

Just above rapists but below pimps and agents.