Geomagntic - Climate, page-92

mjp2, I can't tell if you are just trolling, or if you are genuinely serious.

In terms of knowledge of the science, I first moved to the skeptical side of the pavillion after reading the entirety of the IPCC Assessment Report 3 in 2001, as well as its successors AR4 and most recently AR5. What the body of those reports states is severely at odds with the politicised rubbish that ends up in the summary for policy makers, which bares no resemblance at all to the the material supposedly supporting it. Unfortunately, I have only ever seen the media report on the summary for policy makers.

In terms of your point 1) No, the mere fact that CO2 is one of many greenhouse gasses does not point to it as a primary driver in the slightest. If it were, then we would see CO2 as the prime mover of global warming in the past, which we don't, we see it lag. If, as some people suggest, it is the lever by which apocalyptic feedbacks which escalate, have we not seen runaway warming previously, when CO2 levels rose far above those of today?

Point 2) Again no. tearing down simplistic *** arguments is simply fallacious mjp2. Of course I'm not disputing the evidence that greenhouse gasses affect the Earth's temperature, that's a ridiculous assertion. If it weren't for our greenhouse effect we'd all be dead and life would probably never have emerged in the first place. What I am critical of, is that 1 minor trace gas that is opaque to a very limited range of the EM spectrum is the primary driver of our climate, and that we understand the system so well that we (if we had the political will) could fine tune temperature changes to limit them at 2 degrees C.
Are you aware that even accounting for known orbital and solar variables, we still can't totally explain palaeo-climate?

If fossil fuel aerosols caused the cooling effect from 1950 to 1970, why isn't it more pronounced now due to China's aerosol emissions? Have you read those articles proposing cooling from Aerosols? do you understand how tenuous the links are?

In terms of the 97% criticisms, I'm not sure where you're going, I've never heard of Richard Tolm, I was referring to a peer-reviewed rebuttal paper by Dr David Legates, for whom you'll no doubt offer some suitable Ad hominem attack.

You say doing nothing about AGW is irresponsible and idiotic, have you considered the opportunity cost? Have you considered the millions of very real people starving and in disease and poverty around the world who we refuse to help but instead waste billions of dollars trying to solve a problem that we actually have little to no control over? To me it is irresponsible to commit real resources to such ill-defined issues, when we have very real problems that we could solve to improve the lives of those living now.

The Koch Brothers and Exxon funded sources I read, is the IPCC documentation itself. I'll commit to widening my research into other areas of climate science if you commit to undertaking a simple high school level statistics course.