Registered On: December 24, 2013
“No it isn’t ALL about CO2. The primary greenhouse gases are water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.
You’re also getting climate change confused with global warming.”
Well, that is hilarious! I know perfectly well that CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas, NI. That is and always has been my point. It’s precisely the reason why I keep banging on about the stupidity of reducing it.
As for getting ‘climate change’ confused with ‘global warming’, the point is that climate ‘science’ changed the debate from the latter to the former during the pause, when they realised the world is NOT warming at the rate their models predict.
As for your tome, BRI, I am not the one attempting to make a strong correlation between CO2 and global warming. That is what the climate ‘scientists’ are doing. All that I’m demonstrating is that it’s nonsensical to do so.
In fact you’ve very neatly reinforced the point that I’ve been making for years, which is that the predictions being made by climate ‘scientists’ are absurd. It is and always has been about the magnitude of the problem that matters and there is zero evidence that it’s even remotely close to what is being claimed.
This brings me to your penultimate paragraph, BRI. The plain truth is that the empirical evidence only “fits the theory” in the very broadest of terms. What you’re very conveniently ignoring, which you always do, is my point about the magnitude, which is at the very heart of the problem.
It’s the climate ‘scientists’ who are the ones claiming they have the answer to your question, not me. They’re the ones claiming they can make predictions to a ridiculous level of precision for years into the future.
The truth is they have no more idea than you or anyone else about the ‘unknown variable’, which in reality is almost certainly a very complex mix of different variables. It is the climate ‘scientists’ who are playing God and making claims without a shred of hard evidence for doing so.