Very sad to hear about the passing of John Coleman. One of the real truthtellers and patriots concerning so called "Climate Change".
I guess what you have never understood, and probably never will, is that when some scientist says man may be having an effect on climate, there is absolutely nothing in that remark to allow you to draw the conclusion that that person believes man produced CO2 is affecting climate in any significant way. Among scientists, Hansen's hypothesis is dead! It is only a matter of time before the media and Democrat politicians realize this. These links below will take you to reliable sources of real science on the matter: (this is just a small sampling of actual scientific opinion.) Don't waste our time unless you are willing to educate yourself on this topic.
That's not how science works and you should know better. The proposals Nir Shaviv, Salby, Moore et al come up with are simplistic and basic. Among scientists, those kind of ideas notions and assumptions, become no longer relevant, as during basic early stages of the scientific process, such things get considered refuted or dismissed as plain wrong on grounds where constantly updated data, information, observational measurement (over decades), and basic laws of physics in the real world are taken into account. Had their incorrect assumptions and proposals been otherwise correct, then real science would reflect them. Bottom line is it doesn't. Quite the opposite. It is being Hooked on Hansen, obsessed with preferences to unpublished non-peer-reviewed opinions of these few professional skeptics and cynics doing the rounds, and now the throwing in of a few political barbs for good measure which shows up your seemingly locked in agenda of denial against real science. FC is right to wonder why someone who appears otherwise intelligent and logical would act that way. On this subject you sound like anti-evolutionists do against real science . That's very arrogant of you as signs are you've educated yourself wrongly in this case.
I gave you links to recent stuff. There is plenty of ground work behind it. The early jumping to conclusions was virtually all due to Hansen. And now Hansen and his boys can't let go of their premature conclusions. Their egos have rendered them incapable of dispassionate science. Hansen has got so far away from real science that he is now by-passing peer review altogether, and submitting his "papers" directly to the media. It is shameful behavior on his part. There are hundreds of legitimate scientists who are going to expose him as the quack he's become. If you have any specific criticism of the Shaviv's or Salby's science, state it. Otherwise spend your time bringing yourself up to date on the science. I do not see anything in your remarks that relates directly to the science. I see only editorial opinion. I personally have no need to rehash the science, because Salby and Shaviv have done that for me. My opinion is exactly that of these two scientists. The only thing I would point out that is missing from their presentations, and from most of the literature, is a rather obvious point, to wit: were there positive feedback in the Earths climate system for any considerable length of time, none of us would be here. Positive feedback systems are unstable. (I have pointed this out numerous times.) Ergo the Earths climate system can only have positive feedback if it recently in geologic time transitioned from negative to positive, but there is no evidence of that and no logical mechanism for such a transition has ever been proposed by Hansen or any other scientist!* Of course there are positive components. Overall, however, the feedback is negative as it must be. All the gathered evidence is telling us that the Earth has redundant and powerful negative feedback mechanisms that have, for millions of years, keep the climate within sufficient bounds so even during mass extinctions (asteroid collisions etc.) there has never been total extinction. Always negative feedback, even from large perturbations, has returned the climate to stability within wide bounds for long periods measured in geologic time. There was a period when ice formed in the Mediterranean and a period when the antarctic was forested. Since the formation of a stable atmosphere, however, there was always negative feedback as an essential requirement for stability in any dynamic system. Once Hansen recognized that the only way a trace, weak greenhouse gas could have any significant affect on temperature would be via positive feedback, his hypothesis was done for. By then he had already testified before Congress and got himself emotionally involved. We know what happened. _______________________ * It was Ferenc Miscolski's paper where he used a thermodynamic argument to show that the net feedback in the climate system is required to be negative that got publication of his ground breaking paper suppressed by GISS bureaucrats., and caused him to resign his position.
No publishing climate scientist denies man made global warming. Hansen has been and is totally correct, and Salby and Shaviv are fools and a laughing stock, like you are on this matter. You keep saying CO2 is weak greenhouse gas. That's a lie. It's a strong greenhouse gas and it's level controls the earth's temp.
Common sense would tell one that Man cannot change the climate. This is all a progressive idea designed to separate good people from their hard earned money by using guilt and bully tactics.
In order for someone to believe that Man could control climate, they would then have to believe that Man could control the Sun and other things like volcanic eruptions, precession etc. ---- folks this subject is just common sense and needs to go away as it is not a significant concern.
A U.S. Navy ship is trapped in Montreal until spring due to icy waters http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/navy-ship-montreal-stuck-1.4497416 and still no peer reviewed science stating that man made co2 is causing warming not based on failed models...