The IPCC is also not a scientific organisation but they produce reports that are supposedly based on science. The significance of global cooling was exagerrated by the media, just as they now exaggerate global warming - the two situations are more comparable than you seem to realise. The important point is that the…

Yes and no. There was widespread concern about northern hemisphere temperatures falling from the end of the Second World War to the sixties. This was recognised by the leading climate scientists of the time and even the CIA produced a report about it. Falling temperatures are a far greater problem than rising…

Are you a scientist? If so, what field?

Let me suggest a small correction: Last month was the least cold September in recorded history according to certain heavily-adjusted datsets whilst excluding others and excluding the Medieval Warm Period and numerous other historically warm eras.

Saying that climate science “isn’t important” isn’t the same as saying it doesn’t exist - don’t deliberately misrepresent my opinion.

No, we still think “the science” (putting “the” in front of “science” always rings alarm bells in my mind) is wrong, from the GCMs down to the silly study this article refers to.

The information in that article is taken from the US Government EIA website. Maybe you’d prefer this link:

‘Climate change’ might be a major topic as measured by column inches but not by scientific importance. In any case, this is about a report by economists and is every bit as hopeless as you’d expect.

artiofab’s idea of scientific debate in action: just silence the opposition if you don’t like what they have to say.

You don’t need qualifications to see that climate models are wrong and predictions of warming have been overestimated. Facts beat qualifications every time. In any case, what are your qualifications?

This study is talking about sea level rising over thousands of years - we may just about have time to add a layer of bricks onto sea walls every 50 years.

No, not “measurements of it didn’t show it to be increasing.” it was supposed to be decreasing. You’re trying to suggest that it still is and the study in question is wrong. But then you only question studies which disagree with your pre-determined alarmist conclusion.

What part of Antarctica’s land ice is growing do you not understand?

A “domino effect” in theory, no such effect has been observed in reality.

I said that although my comment seems to have disappeared. I think my comment was broadly correct and it is you who are not conversant with ‘the facts’.

Just because you believe it to be ‘not real’ doesn’t mean it’s actually not real. Here’s how it works: want to study Iguanas (for example) but can’t get funding? Just add “The effects of climate change on...” to your abstract - sudden increase in sources you can apply to for grants. All you need to do to the paper is…

China have agreed to double their emissions over the next 30 years - how is that “combatting climate change”?

The ice age scare was mainstream science. The CIA produced a report on it.

You forgot to include the grant application scam.

“What might the Pope’s angle be?”