Are AGW deniers:
a. Wrong?
b. Dangerously wrong?
c. Ignorant?
d. Hopelessly Ignorant?
e. Selfish money grubbing despoilers of the Earth?
f. Cravenly selfish money grubbing despoilers of the Earth?
g. All of the above.

Weighing the debate? What debate do you refer to?

And while you put so much faith in the IPCC’s models, you seem content to ignore their findings as well when it concerns extreme weather. Nothing in their literature supports AGW causing more extreme weather. While Haiyan and Sandy are tragic events, one visit to the National Hurricane Center’s data sheets show the last ten years to be hardly anomalous and in fact the last two years to be lows in cyclonic activity.

Would this make the link to it guilty of denial?

Read what, your link? Haven’t clicked on it. I’m busy spending time with my family and preparing a for a talk and a couple of TV interviews on climate change. I may get a chance to glance at it later.

I know you’ve read it now.

Please read para 7 again though – it specifically relates to you and the tactics you use here to deny discussion.

Cheers,

Good bye, but I have a feeling you will not be able to resist commenting again.

So you “dekete” a link to a submission to the UK parliament – WHY? It could ONLY be because you don’t want anyone to read it cause it contains some REALLY soul destroying messages for “true believers”.

PROVES my point above “you’re full of ..it!!”

If anyone is interested in a REAL scientists views just type Professor Pierre Darriulat into Google – submission link on first page – enjoy!!

Cheers & GOODBYE!!

Never visited here before (and probably never will again).

“Group think” alarms me as does people who won’t allow links to ANY “skeptical (or “denier”) web site and then (how hypocritical) provide links to SKS & Nature – are you KIDDING).

Here is a link that you CAN’T delete because it isn’t a link to a skeptical site.

It is a link to a written evidence statement by Professor Pierre Darriulat to the House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee in response to the IPCCs AR5 report. (BTW – I get the feeling that Professor Darriulat knows just a TAD more than you or any other AGW believer posting here about the subject!!).

[DEKETED]

Once read by any believers of AGW I would expect them to change their view IMMEDIATELY and become hardened skeptics and when you read it Graham i would think the ONLY response would be for you to close down this website/blog or if you don’t it will prove that you’re full of ..it!!

Cheers,

There is no documented criteria for anyone to falsify the hypothesis of AGW

Sorry for the late response – I have just noticed it.

To falsify the hypothesis of AGW you need to demonstrate any of the following:
1. CO2 does not absorb infra-red radiation.
2. There is insufficient CO2 in the atmosphere to alter Earth’s temperature.
3. Atmospheric CO2 levels are not increasing.
4. The increase does not result from human activity.
5. There is a previously unknown phenomenon that closely counteracts the effects of increasing CO2.

Points 1 and 2 have been known for 150 years, 3 and 4 for just 50 years or so.

These falsifications follow naturally from the basic physics behind the concept of AGW and should not need pointing out to anyone with even a basic understanding of what is going on

Any arguments based on supposed ‘pauses’, etc, merely demonstrate a lack of knowledge of basic climatology or statistics, and probably both.