Yes, Bucks, it does come across to me that you have a big ego. Like I say, you assume that scientists disagree with you because they’re chasing money (not because they know something you don’t), you haven’t ever come up with anything which discounts the queries behind your assumptions, instead you double down and repeat the same points time and time again without answering such. Of course, disagree with me by your wish, but you won’t impress if you cannot explain the problems I have repeatedly pointed out (e.g. the lack of any natural factor, that the anthropogenic source is the same as a natural source and will behave the same, and the lack of any empirical evidence for any kind of unknown warming). We know what factors can influence climate, in accordance with our understanding of it (I am by no means saying we have anything close to a full understanding), so until proven otherwise scientists will continue to focus on the Sun, Milankovich Cycles and the greenhouse effect for climate forcing. These are the things which have driven past natural cycles, so if these other natural factors aren’t at play today (which they aren’t) they cannot be the cause. Therefore, your continued position that it was natural in the past, so must be now, is a false one, especially since your questions over it are based on a lack of reasonability. Short term factors which move temperature away from CO2 rise and a great degree of statistical significance over 150 years (solar cycles, ocean absorption of CO2) should not be used to detract from the evidence that climate change is occurring due to CO2, when this is the only factor which is causing a warming effect, as has been observed. When all the other factors are added in there is a much better correlation, but their presence alone makes direct correlation with CO2 hard. However, without CO2 all the other factors won’t indicate warming at all. Therefore, CO2 is the driver and we know it’s sourced predominantly from human activity.
So, we can show that increased CO2 will lead to increased temperatures, and we have. Again you fail to understand and twist my words to suit, because for you it isn’t about what I say, but what you want me to say. It just will have discrepancies from CO2, because of factors, which will make you say it’s not statistically significant. However, as the CO2 concentrations rise the greater likelihood of a temperature rise there will be. Yet you will still focus on things like the 50s, where aerosols led to a small scale cooling, thus reducing statistical significance from CO2 over 150 years or so, to say there is no correlations and say me admitting such is saying that. It isn’t; I am saying that other factors have had impacts, which may distract the trend slightly, but overall there is an increase in temperature because of it, which can be seen when everything is accounted for. We know what can imbalance climate, we know the factors which aren’t at play now, and if there is an unknown variable which impacts climate I am waiting for the evidence for it (like we have with CO2). If you don’t think these have driven climate in the past, but it is still natural, I am waiting for the theory behind how it drives global temperatures and climates. We know how orbital fluctuations and the Sun can, we know how greenhouse gases can, but we don’t know how unknown factors can. We know random chance can’t, because there has been significant warming and without a factor adding in energy there will be an equilibrium in climate, so the trend should be negligible.
In you’re saying that past climate change has to be natural, and we need to show how anthropogenic CO2 can violate this, you neglect to mention that CO2 has caused warming before (observed in rock record), so this is already a moot point. Of course that doesn’t inherently mean CO2 has to be driving climate today, but we see evidence for that elsewhere, which I have given time and time again. The presence of feedback mechanisms and other small scale fluctuations which detract from the trend does not alter this, because they can be accounted for (i.e. when you see the temperature move away from a perfect correlation with CO2, it can be attributed to something else, but this ends and the temperature trend is still mostly rising with CO2).
I have given hard evidence time and time again, you have ignored it. I am not going to waste time with such. Instead of trying to finger wag at everyone else, try to look at yourself for once. You routinely criticise others on here, and you sometimes have a point (with regards to ignorance of Labour anti-Semitism, for example). However, God forbid anyone point out what they see to be a flaw of yours. I have even emphasised that it’s just my opinion, because I don’t want to be the arbiter of such. You may see it as wrong, but I defend my right to think it when I form that opinion.
You ask for the umpteenth time, but it has been given umpteen times before. Why should I bother when you cannot be bothered to understand arguments or understand why such empirical evidence clearly demonstrates anthropogenic climate change? This is why I say you have an ego; no matter what, your preconceived ideas cannot be wrong. It’s not to ‘attack’ you, it’s because I am bored of having to say the same things over again to someone who asks the same things, and making the same flawed points without an attempt to address the said flaws.
Like I say, feel free to disagree, but I will naturally form such opinions when you give me reasons to do so. You point out flaws with others, yet when others do to you you get outraged and call such attacks. It comes across hypocritical. And it backs up my feelings of your ego.
Yes, Bucks, a small minority of scientists disagree, so what? It doesn’t make you any less in going against what the majority of scientists state. And it doesn’t make it any less presumptuous to think you know more when you aren’t a scientist.