what are you b.s.ing about you have no source at all. not a single peer reviewed article stating man made co2 causes warming. No wonder you sell greenhouse gases for a living. you know there is no proof.
Every expert on earth disagrees with you. No, it is clearly you that is the ignoramus. American Geophysical Union "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
More ad homs and insults from you. You must be getting desperate. Here you go.... In 2003, Hansen wrote a paper called "Can We Defuse the Global Warming Time Bomb?" in which he argued that human-caused forces on the climate are now greater than natural ones, and that this, over a long time period, can cause large climate changes.[42] He further states that a lower limit on “dangerous anthropogenic interference” is set by the stability of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. His view on actions to mitigate climate change is that "halting global warming requires urgent, unprecedented international cooperation, but the needed actions are feasible and have additional benefits for human health, agriculture and the environment." In a 2004 presentation at the University of Iowa, Hansen announced that he was told by high-ranking government officials not to talk about how anthropogenic influence could have a dangerous effect on climate because it's not understood what 'dangerous' means, or how humans are actually affecting climate. He describes this as a Faustian bargain because atmospheric aerosols have health risks, and should be reduced, but doing so will effectively increase the warming effects from CO2..[43]
Wow proof you have nothing. Scientific American pdf is a peer reviewed paper? More... failed climate models.. from your paper... 1. O"bjective analysis of global warming requires quantitative knowledge of (1) the sensitivity of the climate system to forcings, (2) the forcings that humans are introducing, and (3) the time required for climate to respond. All of these issues can be studied with global climate models, which are numerical simulations on computers. But our most accurate knowledge about climate sensitivity, at least so far, is based on empirical data from the Earth's history." 2. "When the temperature, CO2 and CH4 curves are carefully compared, it is found that the temperature changes usually precede the CO2 and CH4 changes, on average by 500-1000 years. This indicates that climate change causes CO2 and CH4 changes" He then speculates that co2 is a positive feedback and a host of other speculations are derived from now failed climate models.
Yeah OK You never answered me Have you read or heard about this book? What do you think? Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming It tells the story of how a loose-knit group of high-level scientists and scientific advisers, with deep connections in politics and industry, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. The same individuals who claim the science of global warming is "not settled" have also denied the truth about studies linking smoking to lung cancer, coal smoke to acid rain, and CFCs to the ozone hole. "Doubt is our product," wrote one tobacco executive. These "experts" supplied it. In particular, they say that Fred Seitz, Fred Singer, and a few other contrarian scientists joined forces with conservative think tanks and private corporations to challenge the scientific consensus on many contemporary issues.[2]
Yet you never mention that Dr. Judith Curry of Georgia Tech and the heads of other climate departments at major scientific universities have outlined dead skepticism of AGW. They have pointed out that "climate change" is more politics than science.
I don't need to read a book about doubting the consensus. I can read your sides source documents. 1. your 97% consensus came for 95 of 97 scientists in a survey of 10000. There is no consensus. There are thousands of skeptical scientists. 2. you have no peer reviewed science showing man made co2 causes warming 3. even your sides top scientists admit temperature leads co2. 4. peer reviewed studies shows change in co2 levels trail but follow change in ocean temps. I have proven all of the above to you a few dozens times on this thread and others. So why would I need an author to create a straw man argument? Those are facts. I prove them to you every month. You and your side deal in lies and misrepresentations.
BULLSHIT!! One of my previous post meets all of your definitions of a "reasonable source". You dismissed it instantly when you realized that it didn't reflect your religion. 1. Peer-reviewed and in Nature. 2. Some bio info of author: http://carolynsnyder.com I am the Director of U.S. EPA's Climate Protection Partnerships Division. I received my Ph.D. from Stanford University's Emmett Interdisciplinary Program in Environment and Resources (E-IPER), with a specialization in climate science and policy. My advisors were IPCC leaders Stephen Schneider and Christopher Field. Look at the graphs. https://www.elitetrader.com/et/goto/post?id=4361264#post-4361264 I know what you will do. You will go and find some quote from her saying there is warming to try and deflect. She is a warmest. LOOK AT THE GRAPHS! This makes it absolutely conclusive that you dismiss any science that disagrees with your religion regardless of the source.