Hi Lionel.

You can use & #44; without the space between & and #. To wit:

,

You are wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

I would go further and use Wolfgang Pauli’s description for RickA’s obfuscation; ‘not even wrong.

Now I have had to use a ; instead of a comma for my key for comma and  < no longer works. All other keys work fine including the others on the multiplexed group.

To get that < I used Alt 060 from the numeric key pad but for some strange reason using Alt 044 for the comma shuts this page down. Tried numerous times. I can get a comma using Alt 044 in a text processor without trouble.

So, what is the mechansim that overpowers all known natural forcings, and what is the mechanism that diminishes the determined human forcings, such that you arrive at the conclusion that there is a net 50% natural contribution to warming? Note: your desire that it be so is not a scientific argument.

The shitbag refused to answer me when I asked the exact same questions. But when you point out that repeating bullshit is dishonest, he whines about name calling and plays the victim, which is contemptible.

Mind you, what can you expect from a lying rightwing troll trying to argue a counterfactual?

The null hypothesis has been and still is that all climate variation is natural.

And the null hypothesis has been discounted by scientific study after study after study.

The burden of proof is actually on you (well really scientists) to prove that the latest climate variation is caused by humans.

That burden has been shouldered, and carried to a destination where all known natural forcings do not account for the observed warming:

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

You have made an extreme claim that is at odds with the science that quantifies both the natural and the anthropogenic forcings, so the burden of proof now rests with you. So, what is the mechansim that overpowers all known natural forcings, and what is the mechanism that diminishes the determined human forcings, such that you arrive at the conclusion that there is a net 50% natural contribution to warming? Note: your desire that it be so is not a scientific argument.

That is why we have not been able to narrow down ECS from 1.5C – 4.5C in the last 30 years.

Another deceitful misrepresentation. It is well understood that the upper and lower bounds of the range are highly unlikely and the most likely value is close to 3K. There is now also very low confidence that the lower bound is below 2K. So the range is 2 – 4.5K with a most likely value of 3K.

Now scientists have long held ~3K to be the most likely value and they do so with ever-greater confidence as the years roll by.

Contrast that factual and honest statement with your bullshit.

That’s complete and utter bollocks. The radiative properties of CO2 are well understood, so we know how and why it is an efficacious climate forcing. There is also overwhelming evidence from palaeoclimate behaviour that high CO2 worlds are hot.

So there is *much* more than simple correlation.

You are bullshitting because you cannot provide a single shred of scientific evidence to back up your claim that modern warming has a significant naturally forced component.

The usual dishonesty.

Science has not been able to prove this yet – all they have is correlation. That is why we have not been able to narrow down ECS from 1.5C – 4.5C in the last 30 years. The signal is so small it is lost in the noise.

Coin flip here about whether you’re so stupid you don’t understand the science and statistics or whether you’re just lying.

Coin flip because, based on your history, stupidity and dishonesty are the two primary factors in your makeup, with equal contributions.