Yet more proof.

[BeElBeeBub]

You've just made my point very nicely. Temperature moving about but CO2 not following it, that's because as I've said many times, CO2 lags temperature.

Let's focus on this for one second.

Is it your contention that the rise in Co2 we have seen is due to the rising temperature (let's put aside how the temperature might rise)?

[BeElBeeBub]

Well, what is their argument?  Where are all the public debates where scientists get together in a room and battle it out?  I thought there would be loads over the last 30 years.  It's so weird I can't find them.

You cont find them because you appear to be looking for a rap battle.

Science works by a scientist(s) submitting a paper outlining an idea.

Maybe they had spotted some odd data, maybe they have a theory.

The publish it, other scientists read it and then respond - maybe they write a paper with data confirming or denying the original idea. Maybe they present a theory explaining some observation another scientist made.  Maybe they present a paper corroborating another paper.

If you look at the weight of evidence, the modeling, the checking of data, refining readings, investigating anomalies etc, it all points to climate change being real and man made.

[Nick]

Pedant.

That was the only detail in your post so it was definitely not pedantic. 

[Nick]

This graph?



I can see the co2 antld temperatures both trending upwards, both with a strong uptick from the late.50's.  it's also notable that the co2 curve has a smooth continual upward trajectory whilst temp wanders about the trend alot more.  If temp drove co2 then why did co2 not respond to the falling temps from 1880-1910? And why did co2 "take off" in the late 50's right after a slight dip in temp?

The sunspots don't seem to have a strong correlation with temp (at least compared to co2)

You've just made my point very nicely. Temperature moving about but CO2 not following it, that's because as I've said many times, CO2 lags temperature.
As for the sunspots, I assume you know the science? Clouds are produced by background radiation, if there is high sunspot activity the solar wind blows the BR away from the Earth and we have far less cloud cover, therefore the temperature increases.

Did you watch the video? And are you going to question anything John Christy (PHD) had to say? Has he got his head up his arse as our resident Dwarf suggests? Bearing in mind he has countless awards for satellite temperature analysis from the likes of NASA?

[papasmurf]

Affecting.  I think you just lost the battle of wits, and were very wise to leave the thread alone.  😁

Pedant.

[Scott777]

This graph?



I can see the co2 antld temperatures both trending upwards, both with a strong uptick from the late.50's.  it's also notable that the co2 curve has a smooth continual upward trajectory whilst temp wanders about the trend alot more.  If temp drove co2 then why did co2 not respond to the falling temps from 1880-1910? And why did co2 "take off" in the late 50's right after a slight dip in temp?

The sunspots don't seem to have a strong correlation with temp (at least compared to co2)

Remember what was said about being selective?  Why have a graph which shows the number of sunspots?  Where is the info about how long the sunspots lasted?  That could be from a day to a few months.

[BeElBeeBub]

This graph?



I can see the co2 antld temperatures both trending upwards, both with a strong uptick from the late.50's.  it's also notable that the co2 curve has a smooth continual upward trajectory whilst temp wanders about the trend alot more.  If temp drove co2 then why did co2 not respond to the falling temps from 1880-1910? And why did co2 "take off" in the late 50's right after a slight dip in temp?

The sunspots don't seem to have a strong correlation with temp (at least compared to co2)

[Nick]

Well, what is their argument?  Where are all the public debates where scientists get together in a room and battle it out?  I thought there would be loads over the last 30 years.  It's so weird I can't find them.

Because if you even question it you're classed as a heretic. I'm betting there are a lot more naysayers who are too scared to speak out for fear of being cancelled. 

[Scott777]

FFS Any man or woman who is in denial that the actions of 7 billion plus humans is effecting the climate.
(People who are in denial of that have gone well past my not attempting to have a battles of wits with an unarmed person limit, which is why I have been until now leaving the thread alone.)

Affecting.  I think you just lost the battle of wits, and were very wise to leave the thread alone.  😁

[Scott777]

I agree

So, if it's the arguments and not the numbers, why is "30,000 PHDs" or whatever important?

The petition is just signatures not an argument.

If 30,000 people signed a petition claiming π=3 that wouldn't make it so.

Well, what is their argument?  Where are all the public debates where scientists get together in a room and battle it out?  I thought there would be loads over the last 30 years.  It's so weird I can't find them.

[Nick]

FFS Any man or woman who is in denial that the actions of 7 billion plus humans is effecting the climate.
(People who are in denial of that have gone well past my not attempting to have a battles of wits with an unarmed person limit, which is why I have been until now leaving the thread alone.)

     

[papasmurf]

Which man did it?  😁  I'm only joking.  You're justification is so powerful, I cannot argue it.  🤣

FFS Any man or woman who is in denial that the actions of 7 billion plus humans is effecting the climate.
(People who are in denial of that have gone well past my not attempting to have a battles of wits with an unarmed person limit, which is why I have been until now leaving the thread alone.)

[Nick]

I agree

So, if it's the arguments and not the numbers, why is "30,000 PHDs" or whatever important?

The petition is just signatures not an argument.

If 30,000 people signed a petition claiming π=3 that wouldn't make it so.

No but it's a very big marker that a lot of very clever scientists don't agree with the polemic. 

[BeElBeeBub]

I guess science is not your strong point.  The scientific process is not a democracy.  If only 1 disagreed, you look at both arguments.  You don't just go with the majority.

I agree

So, if it's the arguments and not the numbers, why is "30,000 PHDs" or whatever important?

The petition is just signatures not an argument.

If 30,000 people signed a petition claiming π=3 that wouldn't make it so.

[Nick]

Which man did it?  😁  I'm only joking.  Your justification is so powerful, I cannot argue it.  🤣

That's one of his more compelling ones, he hasn't used (Expletive Deleted), Seriously or cognitive dissonance. He must have really thought about it