there is no proof humans cause climate change

[EternalOptimist]

So the scientists who believe (praise be) are better than those that don't is what you are saying?

"The king is in the altogether".....

true dat.

In the olden days, being sceptical was a virtue in science

[BlasterBates]

Another humiliating year in store for the "warmists"

NCEP: February 0.10°C Below Normal. Meteorologist Joe Bastardi Astounded By Climatologists “Making Up Excuses”


There is indeed a lot of evidence that HIV causes AIDS, and that smoking causes cancer, but if the global temperatures go down any further there won't be any evidence at all for global warming.

[Paddy]

He's right. There's also no proof that cigarettes cause cancer or the HIV virus causes AIDS.Hell of a lot of evidence, though.

Quark Soup by David Appell: Dr. Patrick Moore Just Misled Congress
HotWhopper: WUWT Sticky: Patrick Moore yearns for the "good old days" 500 million years ago

Well done! The most stupid comment in CUK ever. Remove a lung from any smoker and it will be saturated with tar and nicotine like you can never imagine. (I watched an autopsy in the 60s) Tar is cacogenic. I won’t bother to explain about viruses as its beyond your capability

[VectraMan]

Greens have proclaimed that scientific debate on climate change is over:

BBC News - Climate change: Greens say scientific debate 'is over'

So I don't know why you even bothered to start a thread.

[d000hg]

You don't even need to dig very deeply.

It just kind of oozes out like in oil sands.

[Zero Liability]

Well done! The most stupid comment in CUK ever. Remove a lung from any smoker and it will be saturated with tar and nicotine like you can never imagine. (I watched an autopsy in the 60s) Tar is cacogenic. I won’t bother to explain about viruses as its beyond your capability

The beauty of spamming links and graphs is that people will rarely follow them up and look behind them. Goes for both sides of the debate, of course.

[pjclarke]

And the point sails over the heads of the assembled. A tar saturated lung is strong evidence of a causal link, but it is not proof. There's a small but finite chance that the cancer was caused by something else.

[pjclarke]

NCEP: February 0.10°C Below Normal. Meteorologist Joe Bastardi Astounded By Climatologists “Making Up Excuses”

You clearly aren't aware that

(a) That was NOT global, just land only, probably influenced by the polar vortex in the US.

(b) NCEP is not observations, it is a re-analysis, in other words, a model. Glad to see you trust the models now.

(c) Bastardi is a bit of a nutter

[pjclarke]

So the scientists who believe (praise be) are better than those that don't is what you are saying?

Not even close. Whether I like a scientist or not is utterly irrelevant, the point is - are they correct? David Appell's criticism of Moore seems compelling, what did you think he got wrong?

The Moore piece was just propaganda, absent a science case, it's all they have. The Greenpeace link was tenuous at best, he left nearly thirty years ago and I'm not sure I would describe him as a scientist, these days he makes his living in PR for various industries ....

[pjclarke]

PS

For anyone interested in what the Royal Society and The US National Academy of Science are saying, they've just issued a jointly-authored document

http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFile...nce-causes.pdf

Or you could stick with blogs from washed-up weathermen, and corporate PR from ex-evironmentalists. Tough choice.