[I’d use the “reply ” & “quote” features, but they’re not working correctly for me lately]

#234 Jimmah
“I know you are, but what am I?”

But, seriously, you’ve had such a dose of Green Kool-Aid, you’ve completely missed the point - which you have reaffirmed. You consider the notion that, as you paraphrase, “So there’s no AGW, and if there was, it would be a good thing.” To so outlandish, in your tiny, closed, little mind, that you actually have the impression that I have somehow slipped up, or had some kind of gaffe. You say, “Face facts - that’s your argument in a nutshell” as though it was something I would try to deny, and you further display your lack of capacity for rational thought and reasoning by calling this an “argument” - something you are obviously ignorant as to the meaning of. This is, in fact, something called a “claim”. But like a good little Leftist, you try to change the meanings of words (a skill that is apparently essential, if one is to evade reality), and try to avoid the actual argument being made. I doubt you’re fooling anybody in here (except yourself) with this embarrassingly lame straw man.

Well, what do you know, then you go and accuse ME of a straw-man! That’s hilarious! Well, you did say that A = “Solar can’t be responsible”, that B = “Something else is responsible”, then you claim C = “CO2 is responsible” (I paraphrase for A and C). I guess I was supposed to make the connection (that you apparently did) that models allegedly matching observations proves causation, but that doesn’t follow, and you didn’t even make the claim that it did. To make that leap, the models involved would have to be validated, and no climate model has predicted the last decade with any accuracy - so that kind of blows any “validation” they might attempt to claim. Did anybody with a model go on record in 1999 saying, “Gee, I really think this global warming thing is going to take a break for the next 10 years, and start taking a dip towards the end”? If so, I’d love to hear about it.

Oh, this is even funnier! After accusing me of a straw-man, because it’s “not your argument”, you proceed to restate it - EXPLICITLY!:

So it’s either greenhouse gases, or something “that is completely unknown right now”. This is an admission that AGW is the only game in town in terms of explanations of the recent warming trends.

You’re killin’ me, man! ROFL!

And there IS a decent solar-driven theory, but you wouldn’t know about that, would you?

Jimmah:

Wrong. A warming trend is evident from about 1910 onwards. We begin to see some divergence from natural forcings alone from about 1950 onwards, this becomes much more evident from about 1970 to the present. The mid-century cooling period you refer to was caused largely by pollutants in the atmosphere that reduced the amount of heat absorption. Again, non-one is arguing that CO2, or greenhouse gases generally, are the only factor. The following graph shows the contribution of several important positive and negative forces that have contributed to observed temperatures.

This is kind of sad. An AGW talking about warming since 1910? Before humans could possibly have had any effect? And you include THAT in your “proof”? Then, I notice that the local maximum in the 1930s is missing, which means that the disgraced Michael Mann, or his ilk, ginned this up. Further, the decline in world temperatures that precipitated the “Global Cooling” scare back in the 70s, is completely absent (so I guess they didn’t like that “inconvenient truth”!). Then we leave off the current decade. I guess they had more trouble creating runaway global warming out of nothing for recent years.

Then you claim that industry cools the Earth (when it’s convenient for you) but also warms the Earth (when you need it to). So you threw in some humor at the end to wrap up your monologue