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

[DodgyAgent]

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.

This lot

[original PM]

I thought it was methane causing the problems with CO2 adding a little bit?

whether any of it is true or not well.....

[pjclarke]

DIsproof - easy. You get yourself over to the famous 'WattsUpWithThat' blog, run by a college dropout ex-TV weatherman. He proves that AGW is a scam/fraud/conspiracy/fabrication two or three times a week. To the satisfaction of his readership, at any rate.

If the observed value of one or more of the metrics projected by the global climate models (surface temp is one, or Ocean Heat Content), were to drift outside the range of 95% of model runs, then that would mean it was time for a rethink.



But really, in the literature, the debate has moved on from 'is it happening?' to 'how bad is it going to get?' and 'How do we adapt/mitigate?'. Its only in the blogosphere and the media that anyone doubts the reality of AGW.

And, in all the published studies, spending on mitigation now has a positive cost benefit ratio in terms of future damage avoided.

[pjclarke]

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.

Citation Needed.

[DodgyAgent]

DIsproof - easy. You get yourself over to the famous 'WattsUpWithThat' blog, run by a college dropout ex-TV weatherman. He proves that AGW is a scam/fraud/conspiracy/fabrication two or three times a week. To the satisfaction of his readership, at any rate.

If the observed value of one or more of the metrics projected by the global climate models (surface temp is one, or Ocean Heat Content), were to drift outside the range of 95% of model runs, then that would mean it was time for a rethink.



But really, in the literature, the debate has moved on from 'is it happening?' to 'how bad is it going to get?' and 'How do we adapt/mitigate?'. Its only in the blogosphere and the media that anyone doubts the reality of AGW.

And, in all the published studies, spending on mitigation now has a positive cost benefit ratio in terms of future damage avoided.

spent on what exactly? Al Gore's personal fortune? flights to AGW conferences or other leftie causes?

[DimPrawn]

So if over the next 10 years the average temp anomally stays at zero (which it pretty much is now), we still have Global Warming?



And the money keeps rolling in......

[sasguru]

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.

There's money in AGW, true. But it's not that. You'll never get it.
How's your house in Swindon doing?

[DimPrawn]

There's money in AGW, true. But it's not that. You'll never get it.
How's your house in Swindon doing?

My house in Swindon is growing in value, in the same way that the world is warming.

[BlasterBates]

The thing is about "junk science" or "pseudo science" as Richard Feynman called it, is that you can make it sound sufficiently plausible so that people will believe it, particularly when you add in a touch of politics and religion. A few Hollywood sci-fi movies then can be used to press the message home.

[pjclarke]

Al Gore's wealth is his own business, however as he advises Google and is on the board of Apple, and derives most of his wealth from considerable stock options in both those companies, does this mean that we should disbelieve in the internet and smartphone?

And he donates all profits from his climate change books, movies and his Nobel Prize money to an educational charity.