Ooops the warming disappeared

NZ Herald

There is a damn good reason why people like me have been dismissive of faulty and erroneous climate models predicting ever increasing temperatures…they were just making shit up. When they actually got off their chuff and started figuring shit out…wonders of wonders it turns out the Earth can cope quite well thank you very much without stupid mad things like carbon taxes and an ETS:

Scientists have discovered an “abrupt increase” since 1988 in the uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) by the land biosphere, which comprises all of the planet’s plant and animal ecosystems.

Wellington-based scientist Dr Sara Mikaloff-Fletcher, from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, was part of the global research team investigating the distribution of CO2 emissions.

Ms Mikaloff-Fletcher said the breakthrough had taken scientists “completely by surprise”.

Although the findings were interesting, she said they created more questions than answers.

“We applied some really exciting statistical techniques … to look at how (the uptake of CO2 on land) is changing over time.

“We were completely taken by surprise (by the findings). It’s opened up a whole new series of questions.”

They reckon the findings don;t contradict existing science…I beg to differ. It absolutely challenges existing science and lefty whingers who constantly intoned that the Earth was at a tipping point, that it couldn’t cope…that we had to stop or else…

Well that’s bollocks because we don;t know what we don’t know…and the Earth has coped just fine without us meddling in the past with even higher concentrations of CO2.

I think National needs to drop the ETS now. The ETS is going to have no affect on global warming. Maybe we need to make more CO2 to slow the warming even more! While the “learned” ones think there is no contradiction?

They are NEVER going to admit that they got the man-made global warming theory wrong.


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Michael

    George Carlin is awesome. 


    I’ll say it again, all it takes is one volcano to fart some gas and all the carbon saving in the world will not matter.

    • 6sn7gta


      • gazzaw


      • DRHILL

         Why is it nonsense? Look at the Chile volcano erupting last year. Spewed so much ash into the air it disrupted flights all over the place. You can’t tell me that doesn’t have an affect on the atmosphere? Volcanos could spew as much CO2 / Gas / Whatever into the air that making everything “Carbon-Neutral” would be useless.

      • 6sn7gta

         this is in reply to Gazzaw,  the reply button has dissapeared off the end of my browser.

        all you have to do is google volcanic contribution to co2,  here’s one such finding from

        note that the output of a volcano is roughly 150th that of the tonnage put out by man.



        Volcanic eruptions can enhance

        global warming by adding CO2

        to the atmosphere. However,

        a far greater amount of CO2 is contributed to the atmosphere by human

        activities each year than by volcanic eruptions. T.M.Gerlach (1991,

        American Geophysical Union) notes that human-made CO2

        exceeds the estimated global release of CO2 from volcanoes

        by at least 150 times. The small amount of global warming caused

        by eruption-generated greenhouse gases is offset by the far greater

        amount of global cooling caused by eruption-generated particles

        in the stratosphere (the haze effect). Greenhouse warming of the

        earth has been particularly evident since 1980. Without the cooling

        influence of such eruptions as El Chichon (1982) and Mt.

        Pinatubo (1991), described below, greenhouse warming would

        have been more pronounced

      • 6sn7gta

        this is response to DRHILL.  again the reply button has dissapeared off to the right,  is there a way to fix that?  i;ve tried both firefox and explorer,  anyhoo.

        you are conflating two things,  gazzaw was talking about CO2 contribution by volcanoes,  you are talking about dust. again,  the contribution of co2 by man is 150 times that supplied by volcanoes.

      • Magoo.

        The ability of CO2 to warm diminishes as it’s concentrations rise. For every doubling of CO2 the temp. can rise no more than an absolute maximum of 1.2C without water vapour positive feedback (which the missing tropospheric hot spot confirms doesn’t exist). At the moment the CO2 levels are 396ppm (parts per million), and they will need to double to 792ppm to get another 1.2C rise, and then 1584ppm to get another 1.2C etc.

        Without the water vapour positive feedback it doesn’t really matter too much how much CO2 we pump out, it’s not going to affect the temperature very much without the non-existant positive water vapour feedback. The rising CO2 levels are not a problem and are more than likely beneficial.

      • In Vino Veritas

        6SN, and the American Geophysical Union also have studies on Solar interactions which show there is a solar influence on climate, including the Maunder Minimum and the Medieval Warm Period – see Gray, Beer, Geller, haigh et al.

      • Karlos

        6sn7gta, I call bullshit on your theory that ‘Volcanic eruptions can enhance global warming by adding CO2 to the atmosphere’, read the link below, how is cooling the planet enhancing Global Warming? Stop buying into this Greenhouse effect, sorry, Global Warming, sorry, Climate Change (or has this been proven wrong as well? Whats next?) bullshit and realise that it is a tax scam!

        Also, inscreased levels of CO2 increase plants growth rates and fruit production, shouldn’t we be encouraging an increase in CO2 so we can feed the poor!?!

    • 6sn7gta

       in reply to In Vino Veritasyes you are correct,  the angle of the earth, precession,  and distance from the sun when in orbit,  all have an effect on the heat absorbed in the atmosphere,  hence, seasonal weather.  however,  the effect of that is marginal on the disruptive effect of CO2 being spewed into the atmosphere

  • logical

    The left will continue with this nonesense to tax us control us and restrict our freedoms.The politicians on the right(as well as the left) must be pocketing the carbon credits on their investments so they wont want to get rid of it.
    One well known Politician said his investments are in “blind trusts”so he does not know where the money is invested.It is quite obvious to anyone that a well balanced investment portpolio in NZ would include lucrative forestry where the carbon credits are going.
    So there is little chance of getting rid of this hidious scheme and middle New Zealanders are the ones that will pay the price as usual!

    • Neil

      Tax is a different issue than whether or not the climate change we’re experiencing has anything to do with mankind’s activities. 

      The carbon tax is a nonsense regardless of you political bent. Left or right politics has bugger all to do with it – it fact I would suggest it’s more likely to have been seen by “right” as another blilliant move to make shitloads of money off everyone else.

  • cricklewood

    The more Co2 we have in the atmosphere the greater the plant biomass becomes in response…
    Hardly a big surprise, as a simple analogy given plenty of food people get fat…

  • Rossronald345

    All fixed !!  – beauty. Now the doomsdayers can concentrate on their other areas of science such as the end of the world in December and saving the dolphins through mind control of the struggling inshore fisheries Taniwhas. 

    • Mr_Blobby

      Now everyone knows Taniwhas only accept cash folding and they don’t give receipts.

  • Forest Ranger

    obviously the gaia principal kicking in

  • Johnbronkhorst

    Beautifully summed up!

  • Dr Wang

    As George Carlin so mercilessly points out – these deluded do-gooders rushing around saving the planet cannot believe in Evolution. Does that make them “Creationists”…?

  • 6sn7gta

    actually if you had read the rest of the article you will see that AGW is still carrying on, and whilst any sequestration is welcome,  it’s not doing much,  other than slowing down the upward trend.

    • Magoo.

      You mean the trend that started at the end of the little ice age? Found that tropospheric hot spot yet 6sn7gta?

      • 6sn7gta

         oh it’s you again.  I tell you what,  if you are so certain that you are right,  go produce a paper,  get it peer reviewed and have it published in the scientific based papers,  nature for example.

      • Peer reviewed by likewise clouded scientists sucking on millions of public money?

    • In Vino Veritas

      Oh riiiight! So the reason all the mad science from the greenies isnt working out, is that sequestration is slowing the upward trend! Sooner or later the loopie greenies will run out of straws to clutch.

      • 6sn7gta

         nope,  try foster and rahmsdorf 2011.  they explain why the recent unprecedented in modern times temp records have plateaued.  la nino,  pinotubo and sun spot minimum.  I might have the spelling a bit iffy.

    • Magoo.

      Why would I write a paper and have it published in a peer reviewed journal when it’s already been done. All the links you need are in the article if you take the time to actually read it (try clicking on the red writing for the actual scientific papers, or looking at the footnotes for the pictures):

      And the latest on the climate model failures are here:

      Best get reading 6sn7gta, before you make a tool of yourself in public again. Just remember, knowledge is the best cure for ignorance. I wonder why John Cook doesn’t mention this stuff on his skepticalscience.conjob website, maybe he’s just as ignorant as those he coaches.

      • 6sn7gta

        Why is it that you are so fixated on this? Sounds and feels more like a god of the gaps argument.

      • Magoo

        Nobody states that CO2 doesn’t have a warming influence 6sn7gta, it’s just that it has bugger ability to warm by itself – nowhere near what the models state. The IPCC states 1.2C per doubling of CO2.

        Regarding the scientific evidence of AGW, where exactly is this ‘overwhelming’  evidence proving AGW – all you have is the minute effect of CO2 and no positive feedbacks. Here’s what Hansen has to say at your NASA site:

        ‘Our 3-D global climate model yields a warming of ~4°C for either a 2 percent increase of So or doubled CO2. This indicates a net feedback factor of f = 3-4, because either of these forcings would cause the earth’s surface temperature to warm 1.2-1.3°C to restore radiative balance with space, if other factors remained unchanged.’

        In other words, Hansen says CO2 causes the temp. to rise no more than 1.2-1.3C and the rest is from feedback to triple or quadruple the initial warming. Where’s the proof of the feedbacks 6sn7gta, and if you can’t find any (which you can’t), where is your evidence of AGW?

        Can you ‘recognise the facts’ now they are coming from Hansen 6sn7gta, or will you put your fingers in your ears & close your eyes once again. Where’s your proof?

    • Magoo

      I keep mentioning it 6sn7gta to show that you & the pro AGW groups, scientists included, have absolutely no proof whatsoever for AGW. The skeptics on the other hand have very convincing evidence – the failure of the climate change crowds projections and predictions to pass empirical tests.

      Without the tropospheric hot spot you’re just another greenie activist spouting a blatant pack of insane lies, and we’re all expected to pay our hard earned dollars for your baseless bullshit.

      • 6sn7gta

         that first statment of yours is utter nonsense,  just go to the UK met office,  NASA etc,  it’s there for you to see.

        as for your fixation on the hotspot, it’s not the silver bullet you think it is to dissuade others from the simple fact that the world is heating up and the significant cause for that heating is the long term build up persistance of CO2 in the atmosphere. 

        and as for the last bit in your post above that exposes you completely.

        AFWIW,  and i am sure that you are not interested,  i am not a greenie activist,  i can recognise the facts of global warming,  when it comes from the likes of Santer, Hansen, Alley, Mann, Jones etc.  not from someone called Magoo.

        kind regards

      • Magoo

        Nobody states that CO2 doesn’t have a warming influence 6sn7gta, it’s just that it has bugger ability to warm by itself – nowhere near what the models state. The IPCC states 1.2C per doubling of CO2.Regarding the scientific evidence of AGW, where exactly is this ‘overwhelming’  evidence proving AGW – all you have is the minute effect of CO2 and no positive feedbacks. Here’s what Hansen has to say at your NASA site:’Our 3-D global climate model yields a warming of ~4°C for either a 2 percent increase of So or doubled CO2. This indicates a net feedback factor of f = 3-4, because either of these forcings would cause the earth’s surface temperature to warm 1.2-1.3°C to restore radiative balance with space, if other factors remained unchanged.’…In other words, Hansen says CO2 causes the temp. to rise no more than 1.2-1.3C and the rest is from feedback to triple or quadruple the initial warming. Where’s the proof of the feedbacks 6sn7gta, and if you can’t find any (which you can’t), where is your evidence of AGW?Can you ‘recognise the facts’ now they are coming from Hansen 6sn7gta, or will you put your fingers in your ears & close your eyes once again. Where’s your proof?

      • Magoo
      • 6sn7gta

        Magoo. Which Hansen paper are you referring to?

        The rest of your comments are pure hyperbole.

        Tell me are you a climate scientist?

      • Magoo

        Well if my comments are hyperbole 6sn7gta, then you must have some evidence for AGW then. C’mon, we’re all waiting – I hear it’s overwhelming.

        Do you know why people keep referring to AGW as a religion? It’s because of people like you who are willing to believe purely on faith, with absolutely no evidence to back it up.

  • Neil

    My big gripe is the persistant reliance on computed modelling to come up with these “results” – geez the more our own national weather forecasters use similar modelling to predict our weather the more error is brought in.

    Last week alone we had five days of rain predicted in our area and every day it was reviewed to be further forward – we never got the rain.

    • 6sn7gta

      Sorry to repeat the line but here it is.

      Weather is not climate. Or vica versa.

      • jsrret

        he was calling bullshit on the practice of pretending that computer models can predict the future state of a complex system… weather predictions are a very good example of the problems of pretending that the models can see into the future, and even these weather prediction models need to have their output edited by staff before publication since the models continually output such complete shit…

      • 6sn7gta

         jsrret  i can’t reply directly to your comment below as the reply button isn’t there.

        have a look at the curves below,  this is the HadCrut 3 and Hadcrut 4 comparison,  this is no model,  this is a fact,  the temperature records over the globe are contained therein.

        i am not talking about weather predictions,  i am talking about climate.  Climate is trends in weather taken over long periods,  usually 30 years,  this eliminates ‘noise’ ie weather patterns,  and looks at underlying trends.

      • Euan Rt

        So there is a change of around .5 of a degree averaged over a 30 year period? Tell me what this chart would have looked like a couple hundred years earlier when the little ice age began? Or 2000 years ago when the Romans were growing fruit in what is now desert in Tripoli. The climate is not fixed is it? So you would first need to prove that the current ‘climate change’ in the graph is not a natural event – good luck with that.

  • Paranormal

    So let me get this right.  The unbiased NIWA scientests, who have no interest in their future funding, have run a new statistical model over the existing data and discovered why the earth hasn’t warmed over the past decade as planned.


    • 6sn7gta

      No they haven’t. They’ve suggested that the earth is soaking up a substantial lump of the co2 that has been dumped into the air by man. I suggest that you read foster and rahmsdorf 2011 so the you can see why temperatures have plateaued at unprecedented levels. Heres a clue. La Nina/el niño amongst a couple of other things.

      • onelaw4all

        Rahmdorf 2011?

        You mean the study that decided to start their analysis just AFTER an extended warm period and at the start of a similar extended COLD period?

        Can you say “Cherry Pick”?

        Try again.

      • onelaw4all

        *edit*   Rahmsdorf

  • Johnbronkhorst

    Anyone seen Al Gore lately? Or is off spending his inconvenient millions????

    • logical

      He will be relaxing in comfort in his 9 bedroom heated  and air conditioned mansion that he owns using lots of energy after flying around using lots of energy to speak his tripe for a huge fee so he can spend up large on consumer items that take energy to make.
      Meanwhile old people in NZ will be sitting in a freezing house afraid to turn on the heater because the power bill has been inflated by the carbon tax that has been imposed!

      (yes the hypocrite really does own a 9 bedroom mansion)

  • johnbt

    A quote from NIWA climate scientist boss James Renwick…  ‘long range forecasts were far from certain’.  Dompost 4/2/12 when admitting recent forecasts were totally wrong. These dickheads could just as easily work for Treasury.

  • Ford

    manipulating horseshit to extort money from everyday ppl

  • farmboy

    haha so hope every1s alright with me milking my cows instead of waiting 25 years for some trees to be happy to take the 8dollar a tonne carbon price for my co2 absorbing grass to

  • 6sn7gta

    To whaleoil. Your comment below was pathetic. The climate is seriously changing. And it essentially mans fault. I know that this is weather but there were over 2000 record high temperatures in the us.

    All you do is spin politics nothing else. You and your ilk here are the ones with your heads in the sand

    Things are going to change. No matter what you say or how much stupid noise you make about it.

    Also what’s wrong with this site where if comments get further than about 3 replies that the reply button dissapears off the side if the page?

    • farmboy

      yea its changing for the better mate just did a record season on the farm best year since 1967 when farm was purchased dont use anything other than silage hay and grass all made on farm like every other year.Looks like our ilk is over 50% in england now when you make bodgy predictions and use scare tatics one day you have to eat your words or in this case put a spin on it how can the trees and plants be taking more when theres all those rain forests coming down in 3rd world countries ,or is the only spin you want to hear thespin delivered today

    • Pukakidon

      Help Help the sky is falling I tell ya!  The sky is falling, why don’t you believe me?  Aaaaaahhhhhh!    Global warming has made my reply button disapear!

      Give it a rest, you and you likes have been outed as liars and deceitful manipulators of data.   You have cried wolf and have been found out for too long now.

    • onelaw4all

      “To whaleoil. Your comment below was pathetic. The climate is seriously changing. And it essentially mans fault. I know that this is weather but there were over 2000 record high temperatures in the us.”

      If the climate wasn’t changing over longer periods then you would REALLY have something to worry about.

      As to your opinion as to the cause, well you know what they say about opinions ;]

      Don’t you find it ironic that you accuse WO of “spinning politics” when you drink from the IPCC kool aid, which is a completely political entity.

      As to the 2000 record temps in the US, well woop de doo!!!

  • Sheppy

    So it’s gonna warm – after the temperatures of last week I look forward to it – will going for a drive in a large V8 help?

  • 6sn7gta

    Again the reply button doesn’t work,  anyway in reply to Magoo on the Hansen paper,  this paper was written in 1984 when the effects of climate sensitivity were not so well known.  You really can’t pin all you hopes on a paper that is nearly 30 years old.

    • Pukakidon

       Does that mean in 30 years time all this nonsense you are peddling will also be wrong?  Is that how it works, make crap up and then later on claim it was all wrong without any consequences?

      • Ford

        no refunds though

      • 6sn7gta

         see above

  • 6sn7gta

     hello,  this is reply to one law for all.  again the reply button isn’t available

    here’s a url to temperature records on wikipedia

    it’s from 1850,  as you can see,  it’s going up.

    Foster and Rahmsdorf 2011,  did their analysis over 1980 to 2011,  hardly cherrypicking if you compare the two curves,  which you can find here:

    you can see the effects of temperature rise when you see the enso,  volcanoes and other retarding events removed.

    • TravisPoulson

      The only “retarding event” is you posting on this blog. You need help. Seriously, please seek it. The world climate is going to change no matter what. We can’t control it, we aren’t causing it. 

      I wonder if the dinosaurs were stressing out with the impending ice age. That’ll teach ’em for leaving the fridge door open.

      • 6sn7gta

         again Ad Hom adding nothing to the conversation

      • TravisPoulson

        Nothing is needed to be added, you’re mentally unwell. 

    • onelaw4all

      Wikipedia!!  Bringing out the big guns now, huh?

      I like it how they still have the MannLol hockeystick in there 

      Temperature going up from 1850?

      You mean after the LIA finished?

      Who’da thunk it!!

      As to the Rahmsdorf 2011, why do you think they disn’t include ALL the data from the record that they did?
      I.E from 1880?

      I’ll give you a hint,, there was quite a warm spell from then to where they decided to start their first data point.

      • 6sn7gta

         hello  Wikipedia was just a useful place to find the curve i was looking for.  don’t get too excited. 

        As for foster and rahmsdorf,  they used the ast 31 years as it takes roughly 30 years for a trend to be established.  and what they were investigating was the effects that reduced insolation would have during periods of low sunspot activity,  roughly a cycle of 11 years or so,  Volcano output of dust into the atmosphere,  and ENSO,  which is the El Nino/La Nina Southern OScillation,  which is currently in a La Nino cycle,  which is a downturn.

        What they found was that when you remove the negative effects of the above from the global temperature record,  and they used 5 records, that the underlying trend was still upwards.  Now remember that this was done before the new carbon sink was discovered.  And remember it was the carbon sink discovery that started off Cameron on this article.  the point being that it doesn’t seem to be the silver bullet that you are all looking for. 

        Some of you have alluded to the fact that volcanoes spew out lots of CO2,  they do,  but it’s nowt compared to what man is putting out. 

        We are coming out of La Nina,  and heading to El Nino,  and the sun spot cycle is coming to an end,  ergo,  those diminishing elements in the heat record are going to dissapear,  these are some of the reasons why the current high world wide temperatures have plateaued at record highs for the last ten years, the image below is that from HadCrut 3 and HadCrut 4;

        show that the temps have leveled off,  it’s going to go up again.

        What is it about this that you find you so hard to understand?

  • CRM114

    Golly. I thought Anthropomorphic Global Warming was complicated but, no, it’s all been sorted out by a New Zealand blogger and people writing anonymously on the Internet.

  • Davis Gp

    I’ll bet anyone that global cooling is coming, and we’ll need to do some adapting to the cold. So don’t let the government waste your money when you’ll need it. Earth drastically needs to keep burning fossil fuels, dismantling wind turbines, assassinating IPCC and UN members (to begin) for being criminals against humanity.  

    • Karlos

      Global Cooling already happened in the 70’s, they took Sulphur out of petrol and look, all fixed. Maybe we should just re-add Sulphur to petrol and Global Warming will be fixed too?

  • 6sn7gta

    all you dunning kruger types are going to love this:

    this place really is ‘republican brain’ central isn’t it!


    • TravisPoulson

      You are a shining example of why bath salts need to be banned in this country. 

      • 6sn7gta


    • axeman

      Troll alert! 6sn7gta are you the truffle grower from that obnoxious proAGW bogsite NOT TROPIC? (oops hot topic)

      • 6sn7gta

        nothing like a good ad hom attack to get to the heart of the matter is there?  feeling better now? you should broaden your scope,  try, desmogblog, yaleclimateforum,  this publishes the latest papers of AGW,  climatecrocks is brilliant for pillioring fools.  there are heaps more,  you should really get out more :)

  • Davis Gp

    You ugly commies will hate this:
    It’s brilliant and (seriously!) does not mislead at all.

    • Karlos

      26 professors and climate scientists as well, sounds like a concensus to me

      • 6sn7gta

         I wouldn’t get too excited.  the GWPF is a schill organisation set up by Nigel Lawson,  former chancellor of the exchequer,  if you go through most of the board members their mostly ex pollies.  one is a bishop who has  chemistry degree. Others are economists,  Freeman Dyson is in there too,  he’s a particle physicist of major reknown,  but not a climate scientist,  emminence in one area does not naturally flow onto a totally unconnected area.  The only climate scientist that they have on board is Richard Lindzen, a well known contrarian who seems to lap this stuff up.  He recently did a presentation in the house of parliament,  which you can rent by the way, to a select audience that was chaired by Monckton,  so you can guess the rigour.  some consenus.  GWPG was set up by Lawson post ‘climategate’.  Here’s a line from wikipedia:  The GWPF website carries an array of articles skeptical of environmental science, including demonstrably false statements made by Lawson about climate change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[8].kind regards

  • Davis Gp

    “Far from it being ‘science’ which is under attack from all those experts who dispute the orthodoxy on global warming, the truth is the very reverse. It is the dissenters who are trying to speak for genuine science, against those who misuse its prestige to promote a cause which has too often betrayed the very essence of proper scientific method. The fact that the BBC has been turned, in Peter Sissons’ words, into a mere ‘propaganda machine’ is scandal enough. But a far greater scandal is the way the authority of science has been hi-jacked to serve a fatally flawed belief system which threatens to inflict irreparable damage on the future of us all.”

    From Booker’s pdf, linked above. 

    • onelaw4all

      The BBC’s pension fund is well and truly tied to the Green Industrial Complex, so they are literally “invested” in disseminating as much propaganda as possible.

  • Davis Gp

    Look at Figure 1-5 here,

    “From this plot, it is clear that most of the last 420 thousand years (420 kyr) was spent in ice age. The brief periods when the record peaks above the zero line, the interglacials, typically lasted from a few thousand to perhaps twenty thousand years.
    These data should frighten you. All of civilization developed during the last interglacial, and the data show that such interglacials are very brief. Our time looks about up. Data such as these are what led us to state, in the Preface, that the next ice age is about to hit us, any millennium now. It does not take a detailed theory to make this prediction. We don’t necessarily know why the next ice age is imminent (at least on a geological time scale), but the pattern is unmistakable.”

  • 6sn7gta

    It’s not hard to notice that you guys don’t like the ETS and similar schemes,  have a look at this instead as an alternative.

    this is a think tank that comes from a ‘conservative’ pov.  looking at reducing personal tax and removing subsidies for all fuel organisations [admittedly this is a US based scheme] and taxing pollution,  as they put it,  taxing less on what we want and taxing more on what we don’t want.

    • Magoo

      Poor old 6sn7gta. He thinks because it’s been warming that it is due to mankind, yet has no evidence to back up his beliefs – perhaps a bit confused between warming & anthropogenic warming. I keep asking for proof but strangely it never appears, just more excuses and dribble.

      6sn7gta – if 1.2C per doubling of CO2 isn’t correct, then what is? If CO2 can only raise the temp that much, where’s your proof for the rest of the projected warming, warming that hasn’t occurred?Just another greenie activist with nothing to back up his bullshit claims. It hilarious watching the greenies squirming when asked to backup their claims with some actual scientific evidence. First they try to avoid the question and attempt to sidetrack the debate into something else, then they lie their asses off, & then they resort to the argument from authority (the guys who refuse to debate with anyone or release their data) when they know they’re beaten. All they have to do is show some evidence, it’s supposed to be ‘overwhelming’ from what I’ve been told, yet in all the years I’ve asked it’s never appeared for some reason.

      • 6sn7gta

        it’s not that i think that warming is due to mankind, the evidence is overwhelming,  your inability to recognise this as such is more pity on you.

        there is no avoiding of issues,  you raise nothing but strawman issues,  which are in effect god of the gaps,  pathetic really,  you seem to think that if you have found a perceived issue then it all comes tumbling down,  au contraire.  I wish you well in your delusions