The latest figures and weather consequences of global warming

[Paul72]

The subject title is "latest news" so for tired subjects look at the archives. Personally, I am not interested in answering it. You will find it on your own I'm sure by asking "specialists"

[ABC2019]

The subject title is "latest news" so for tired subjects look at the archives. Personally, I am not interested in answering it. You will find it on your own I'm sure by asking "specialists"

you can very well be sure of false things, these are things that happen, in any case I register that you do not have an answer to this simple question.

[Paul72]

The subject title is "latest news" so for tired subjects look at the archives. Personally, I am not interested in answering it. You will find it on your own I'm sure by asking "specialists"

you can very well be sure of false things, these are things that happen, in any case I register that you do not have an answer to this simple question.

I return the comment to you (with much more chances that you are in error since you contest a scientific consensus that I do not dispute). And I answered in a suitable subject, even if the answer does not suit you pad.

[ABC2019]

The subject title is "latest news" so for tired subjects look at the archives. Personally, I am not interested in answering it. You will find it on your own I'm sure by asking "specialists"

you can very well be sure of false things, these are things that happen, in any case I register that you do not have an answer to this simple question.

I return the comment to you (with much more chances that you are in error since you contest a scientific consensus that I do not dispute). And I answered in a suitable subject, even if the answer does not suit you pad.

I do not dispute anything scientific at all, and the consensus that you invoke on the fact that CR is "almost -totally" due to anthropogenic factors does not exist, except in your imagination. Obviously you do not have a very in-depth knowledge of the subject, and you forcefully assert approximate, even incorrect, things on the "consensus" (based on references written by people who are no more specialists in the field), without be able to justify them.

[Paul72]

You like going around in circles to say nothing ... So find me serious climatologists who dispute everything I said: I expect facts, not obscure innuendos.

[ABC2019]

You like going around in circles to say nothing ... So find me serious climatologists who dispute everything I said: I expect facts, not obscure innuendos.

oh well if you want readings on the natural variability of the climate, that's not what's missing ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_v ... and_change

[izentrop]

You like going around in circles to say nothing ... So find me serious climatologists who dispute everything I said: I expect facts, not obscure innuendos.

oh well if you want readings on the natural variability of the climate, that's not what's missing ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_v ... and_change

You are the one who needs the information since you dispute the conclusions of the scientific consensus.

You say you understand IPCC publications, I don't. By cons I learned a lot with popularization sites powered by volunteer scientists, but you wrote that they were morons, so find out for yourself and stop asking stupid questions.

[ABC2019]

You like going around in circles to say nothing ... So find me serious climatologists who dispute everything I said: I expect facts, not obscure innuendos.

oh well if you want readings on the natural variability of the climate, that's not what's missing ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_v ... and_change

You are the one who needs the information since you dispute the conclusions of the scientific consensus.

well no, it's you who are mistaken about the nature of the "consensus": the only thing that has been tested is that man "causes global warming"

https://skepticalscience.com/global-war ... ediate.htm

This is normal, moreover, since a large part of what we call climatosceptics also believe in it, and so do I.

no consensus has ever been tested on the lack of natural variability as part of global warming, so I don't dispute any consensus saying that it is entirely possible that there is a significant part of it. It is I who read scientific studies more carefully than you, I do not deny them at all.

You say you understand IPCC publications, I don't. By cons I learned a lot with popularization sites powered by volunteer scientists, but you wrote that they were morons, so find out for yourself and stop asking stupid questions.

ah well then there is a simple way to agree, without getting excited, show me a popular site where it is written that there is a consensus that natural variability is certainly negligible in the observed warming since the early twentieth century, if you think it is thanks to that that you know, and that will settle the question.

[izentrop]

show me a popular site where it says there is a consensus

The burden of proof lies with the protestor, if not not very up to date, since the author is deceased but of high quality http://www.clubdesargonautes.org/climat/cc/chap16.php

[ABC2019]

I'm not sure you understood what I said Izentrop

oh well if you want readings on the natural variability of the climate, that's not what's missing ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_v ... and_change

You are the one who needs the information since you dispute the conclusions of the scientific consensus.

well no, it's you who are mistaken about the nature of the "consensus": the only thing that has been tested is that man "causes global warming"

https://skepticalscience.com/global-war ... ediate.htm

This is normal, moreover, since a large part of what we call climatosceptics also believe in it, and so do I.

it has never been tested for consensus on the absence of natural variability as part of the warming,

I completely agree that there is certainly an anthropogenic warming, but I am not convinced that there is ONLY that (and therefore that the influence of CO2 is so great as that), and given the uncertainties about the models, no one can say that this is the case.