[loyatemu]

Originally Posted by Naggdefy

MT states.. 'about two-thirds natural and one-third anthropogenic in origins'. So your synopsis is incorrect. Also very disingenuous to throw around cheap trite labels like 'climate change denier' to someone with as distinguished and scholarly a background as the OP.

I enjoy MT's weather forecasts. Can someone point me towards his climatology credentials (a genuine question)?

[Reckless Abandonment]

Originally Posted by Coles

No. It's not population. It's consumption.

1% of the World's population has more CO2e emmissions than half of the World's population.

If humans are responsible for all or any part of climate change. Population grown has to be a huge factor in it. 1% might be massively over polluting but the other 99% are catching up fast.

[Naggdefy]

Originally Posted by loyatemu

I enjoy MT's weather forecasts. Can someone point me towards his climatology credentials (a genuine question)?

If you study weather and observe and measure meteorological data for half a century as MT said surely that's a pretty good start.

[Larbre34]

Originally Posted by Coles

No. It's not population. It's consumption.

1% of the World's population has more CO2e emmissions than half of the World's population.

CO2 emissions are not proportional with all of biodiversity loss, food security, migration and resource conflict. I recognise the disproportionate impact of a profligate western hemisphere on resource consumption, but rising standards and expectation of similar consumption appetites amongst many billions in the developing world are the real elephant in the room. Yes, in terms of CO2 production, fossil fuelled energy generation in these same areas are what are causing the main increase in global emissions, but once they mature out of that (if for no other reason than it becomes uneconomic) the other issues all remain.

[Gaoth Laidir]

Originally Posted by loyatemu

I enjoy MT's weather forecasts. Can someone point me towards his climatology credentials (a genuine question)?

I'm sure he can give you the details, but I know he qualified in climatology back in the early days and then worked as a professional weather forecaster in the US. He's more qualified than most commentators when it comes to this subject.

[Coles]

Originally Posted by Naggdefy

If you study weather and observe and measure meteorological data for half a century as MT said surely that's a pretty good start.

It's a start, but it doesn't qualify you to propose a serious alternative to the IPCC.

[Gaoth Laidir]

Originally Posted by Coles

It's a start, but it doesn't qualify you to propose a serious alternative to the IPCC.

Yes it does. Anyone can propose a theory. As long as they can back it up with credible data then it is a serious alternative.

[Hooter23]

Records show the world was even warmer in the past...even when there was no CO2 from cars industry etc...

[Naggdefy]

Originally Posted by Coles

It's a start, but it doesn't qualify you to propose a serious alternative to the IPCC.

They're just a group of individuals. MT is as entitled to give his views.

[Gaoth Laidir]

Originally Posted by Coles

It's a start, but it doesn't qualify you to propose a serious alternative to the IPCC.

Did you ever question Al Gore's credentials?

[Tuisceanch]

I can't accept the IPCC arguments and I don't think they have a true "proven science." They bang on about some 99% consensus which they can only attain by excluding all dissidents in the profession (and they are numerous).

It would be helpful if the OP could list some of the most credible dissidents,in his opinion, to provide further support for some of his opinions and viewpoints.

[Coles]

Originally Posted by Gaoth Laidir

Yes it does. Anyone can propose a theory. As long as they can back it up with credible data then it is a serious alternative.

Are you suggesting that we ignore the IPCC and wait for the credible data that will support this "serious alternative" theory?

The IPCC has done a lot of work on this. It seems silly to try to create a middle ground between the conclusions of the best scientific minds in the world and a bunch of fossil fuel funded rightwing crazies.

[Coles]

Originally Posted by Gaoth Laidir

Did you ever question Al Gore's credentials?

This is silly too.

[Hooter23]

The whole climate change scam is very profitable it made Al Gore a billionaire after all...its all about the money as usual in this corrupt joke of a world where everything is a lie

[Oneiric 3]

Originally Posted by Coles

This is silly too.

Is it? What about Greta Thunberg's credentials also? Surely there must be more to her than those cute pigtails she commonly sports?