[curiouscat]

GW does not exist, it part of a natural climate cycle.
Carbon tax is a bulls&$# thing made to make money for the big companies by government.

Like green chemistry, no such thing.

Gotcha. That's clear.

Thanks!

[magician4]

@curiouscat

ref. (a) "Anthropogenic Global Warming itself is bogus"
there must be a human signal in all of temperature development, of course
we see it locally: local heat island effect, but also local dimming, the effect of crops vs. natural wilderness ( different albedo)  and so on an so forth.
however, to the best of my knowledge we still can't identify this signal experimentally in a global sense, let alone know which direction it has in a net sense
therefore i come to the conclusion that the human effect most probably is minuscule, compared to the what mother nature does in her own right

ref. (b) GW does exist but it doesn't have a solution
climate is not a stable system, as history shows without any reasonable doubt: it has always changed, and will always change
the huge parameters governing the situation are: activity of the sun (both with respect to its general brightness on a very very long time scale, i.e. over billions of years, and with respect to the solar cycles and their activity level: 11-15 years in general) , Milancovic cycles, continent distribution on earth's surface with subsequent effects (mountains like the Himalaya massive, sea currents...), earth's activity (volcanoes...) , general biological activity (albedo ...), .
... and finally, somewhere near the end of all this: the human activities
Amongst those activities, human made emission of carbon dioxide again is one of the smallest factors of influence , by far overruled by factors like local albedo modification (heat islands, crops..) and local dimming (esp. smoke from huge industrial areas [ China] and airtravel seem to have some influence)

so, on the large scale, as we can't influence the sun in its activities, and as we can't make the earth move on different pathways , as we can't stop continents from drifting, mountains from growing, volcanoes from erupting  and sea currents form floating: no , man can't do noting about this, on any relevant long-term scale
we could provoke a nuclear winter , yes
but not for long

ref. (c)(...)  but C-taxes are not it.
with respect to the first part "GW exists, solutions exist": see above
with respect to the later "... but C-taxes are not it" :
it has been calculated for Australia (if memory serves) , that even if the reduction in man made emissions would be forced by named taxes like projected, the net effect to average temperature level in Australia would be minus 0.008 kelvin
I won't call this a solution for whatsoever problem


to cut a long story short: IMHO man can't influence global climate in any meaningfull way, neither for better nor for worse. Climate has always changed, is changing, and will keep on doing so. Therefore, man in his own interest must be prepared for both: that it might get somewhat warmer (which, historically, hadn't been a problem at all) , and that it might become colder - and in the very near future at that, if the what solar scientists predict becomes true.

Look at the Maunder Minimum, and you know what I mean.
Mankind is not even in the slightest way prepared for that, and this is something that makes me worried.

It's only mid of October, and we have first night frosts in Germany: Mene mene tekel u-parsin

regards

Ingo

[DrCMS]

So you both think that the measurable increase in CO₂ from burning fossil fuels has had no impact on global temperatures?

[Kate]

"The Mail on Sunday cites a leaked report to the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which says there was 60 per cent more Arctic sea ice this August than at the same time last year. The minimum reading for the year normally comes in September."

In http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/climate-change-size-of-arctic-ice-caps-increases-8804911.html

Right now, I don't think anyone can state for sure that the planet is either cooling or warming.

[magician4]

@DrCMS

So you both think that the measurable increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuels has had no impact on global temperatures?

first: what kind of "measurable" are we talking about?
IPCC and thatlike usually refer to Mauna Loa station, a station located on top of an active volcano.
they claim that the effects of the volcano emitting massive amounts of carbon dioxide are being calculated out of their measurements.
but see for yourself:
http://tu-freiberg.de/fakult2/angph/forschung/hb/hb_kohlendioxid.pdf
here: picture 7 , page 8 on top
blue: data from ice core-drilling, station "Siple", Antarctica
pink: data from Mauna Loa
obviously, two things MUST be terribly wrong with Mauna Loa: first, they started with a very low CO₂-conc. "recalculated from measurements" in the early 50th - with a 87 years gap to the what respective ice core data prove to have been the truth then.
Second: the Mauna Loa graph clearly is sigmoid in its shape, something that simply  is impossible if we were adding carbon dioxide at a constant or even increasing rate: the graph should be linear, or even exponential instead.
However, this graph if the whole foundation of the claim, that man is increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere the way they're accused to do

therefore, it is necessary to reinvestigate the methods we're measuring carbon dioxide, ruling out theses contradictions, before we even can start to extract meaningfull conclusions from those results

there are meaningfull measurements from satelites available these days, but as they strictly contradict climate modells used by for example IPCC, both with respect to temperature distribution in atmosphere as as with respect for trends, they're not esp. welcome in certain circles, and hence most seldomly referred to:


(picture taken from: link)

second: (...) from burning fossil fuels
nobody knows how much of the carbon dioxide without any doubt released by mankind really ends up in the atmosphere permanently: there are so many equilibria of input and output involved, that we can't discriminate natural variations (which are huge) from man made factors.
however, even if we, for calculations sake , would make all of the carbon dioxide increase since the early 1900dreds "manmade", this only would account for  0.4 K plus since then ...
... if we didn't invent this shameless hoax "radiative forcing" people that "calculate" future climate from their models need so badly (else, they couldn't predict a horrific future).

however, those climate models - and they've been around long enough to compare them to reality - tend to abberate from reality badly:

(picture taken from: link )

you think those models should be reinvestigated for their reliability?
the opposite is true: reality is being accused of not matching these models, and hence needs "massaging" of for real measured data badly...
take a look at "climate gate", and you know what I mean...
... and esp. take a look at one of the latest infamous result of this: link

third: (...) has had no impact on global temperatures?
as I wrote earlier: of course there is an impact, surely.
everything has its impact in a complex system, to a certain degree or another.
question is not whether there is an impact or not, question is, whether it's a meaningfull, relevant impact with respect to the effects caused , or not.

and even IF we'd agree - just to facilitate this discussion - that those 0.4° plus would exclusively be related to man burning fossils, we'd also have to ask a totally different question: is this something "dangerous", and what would the alternatives be?

"no" , and "pretty bad" would be my personal answers


regards

Ingo

[JGK]

Global Warming doesn't exist as the data showed a lack of it so it morphed into "climate change" which nicely covers hot and cold events

Kinda reminds you of creationism being crap science so it morphed intothe more "sciency-sounding" Intelligent design.