Do we really know, human greenhouse gas emissions cause etc

It wouldn't be so bad if they had any scientific background.  It's all political and virtue point seeking.

I started to read it, but it was just another re-hash. 
Maybe some Sherlock Holmes style evidence based rebuttal would be better than just repeating they haven't proved it beyond all doubt. 
And what gives you away is claims like 
"the arctic sea ice will be gone in a few years; it didn't and now seems to be stabilising and recovering;"
Take an extreme view "Will be gone" add "now seems to be stabilising and recovering;"
Miss out the bit about how much it has shrunk by and how much smaller the stabilised size is. 

That's why your articles fail to persuade, they cherry pick info hinting at evidence without providing any. 

Then you should have read it as it deals with teh values as presented for our info, much twiddled and manipulated as they have been, but those are the values to work on

Worth a read and a look at teh graph which I hope comes up


A second important new paper is from Antonis Christofides and co-authors dated September 26, 2023. They introduce their paper with a long post of that date at Climate, Etc. titled “Causality and Climate.” The part of the full technical paper relating to the climate science application can be found at this link. If you go to that last link and try to read through it, you will find technical math that will quickly have your head swimming, even if you are a quasi math geek like myself. However, their fundamental point as to causality in climate science is not very complicated: if you plot recent temperature increases against increases in CO2 in the atmosphere, it’s the temperature increases that come first, and the CO2 increases follow. Thus, if there is causality, it must be that the temperature increase is causing the CO2 increase, rather than the other way around.



Here is the key chart from the post at Climate, Etc.. The authors present it as a quiz: look at the chart, and the explanations, and without any further mathematical analysis, draw a conclusion as to the direction of causation:





From the technical paper:



[T]he surprising finding [is] that, while in general the causal relationship of atmospheric T and CO2 concentration, as obtained by proxy data, appears to be of hen-or- egg type with principal direction 𝑇 → [CO2], in the recent decades the more accurate modern data support a conclusion that this principal direction has become exclusive. In other words, it is the increase of temperature that caused increased CO2 concentration. Though this conclusion may sound counterintuitive at first glance, because it contradicts common perception (and for this reason we have assessed the case with an alternative parametric methodology in the Supplementary Information, section SI2.4, with results confirming those presented here), in fact it is reasonable. The temperature increase began at the end of the Little Ice Period, in the early 19th century, when human CO2 emissions were negligible; hence other factors, such as the solar activity (measured by sunspot numbers), as well as internal long-range mechanisms of the complex climatic systems had to play their roles.


Bugger did not work go to the link to check the graph, sorry mys skill set in this is limited.

I don't see it as an 'us vs them' struggle as it usually depicted here.

I would tend to listen closest to those who have the best interest of the planet at heart rather than those who pursue narrow economic or political interests.

However I don't know enough about the subject in sufficient detail to nominate actual leaders. My suggestion would be to leave it to those who do.

Agreed but how do we decide who knows and who knows but is not telling the truth and who knows and just wishes to use the 'green agenda' to control our lives. It is currently being demanded of us, no it is being forced upon us, that we give up ICE cars very soon, that we do not use fossil fuels in electric generation that we live colder, shallower, narrower lives as a necessity and to get there we have to make many more sacrifices. 
My point is I think there are many lies being told and many of those lies are not to save the planet but to further personal agendas and those who do are using many people of the green persuasion whose integrity I do not question but whose commitment to that cause I do

I do not have to explain as it is you and your ilk that are saying it is CO2 with a cause and effect yet we see that the cause comes after the effect which makes no sense. As regards oodles of energy is that not the point that cloud cover, greenhouse gases and lots of other things contribute to a warming effect, perhaps the reduction of ash in the atmosphere or sulphur dioxide  or perhaps people have been playing with the weather by seeding clouds or perhaps it is God's work. I do not know, what concerns me most is that there is a demand we do something, that something involves significant cost to every British family and individual and significant near future change in lifestyles and that demand is based on science that many people question, many of them actual climate scientists.

I have no idea if cloud cover has changed, you asked what else could it be. Many things have changed over the last 30years. Are they seeding clouds and interfering with natural climate. I do not know, some think they are but who knows.The point is that CO2 has a capability but that capability is not borne out by the figures taken from official sources as they show that CO2 trails temperature. It is like saying punches cause black eyes and look here is a graph that shows the incidence of black eyes with the punches following a few steps behind. It makes no sense as a cause and effect situation.