United Kingdom Madhouse

That is just moving the goal posts a few feet. A denier moving from 'its not happening' to 'Its not man made' to 'it is manmade but wont be as bad as they say' to 'we don't know how bad it will be so we should do nothing until its happened' All are deniers to me 




No, I asked for evidence of multiple scientists (in fact the whole climatologist community) being coerced into agreeing with AGW. This against the claim that the 90% plus figure of those who support AGW is false.


What do you mean by a direct danger? Like its going to eat us all or the planet will explode?? 
There is no direct danger of that sort, there is danger to life from stronger storms etc but the real concern is rapid change and its costs both in terms of infrastructure, food supply and damage to nature. 
My personal argument is that the cost of adapting to the changes will considerably outweigh the cost of changing how we make energy and products. 


The all or nothing argument which never reflects reality. But is used as an excuse for doing nothing about anything. 

If you think the NHS is underfunded you should give away all your money and live in a cage.
If you want to help battered wives you should also help battered husbands, battered dogs, cats, gerbils. Or help no one.

Stupid argument not worth addressing. 

However if you made your money from county lines drug selling (assuming you are reformed) you might expect to contribute to a drugs rehabilitation program.

Do you feel you do not have any responsibility for the things you have done? 

Why do you keep saying that people are denialists. They are not denying, I am not denying and most people are quite clear in their comments that AGW is an effect, it is just to what level it is an effect. Could perhaps get this right this time
Let us see, she is a climatologist, she was well respected and you said they do not exist. All I needed was one to refute that comment. However try Bjorn Lomberg, Kiminori Itoh, Ivar Giaever and Will Happer.
Perhaps you can show the most evidence to support that AGW is a direct danger, that evidence, uncontested, is a bit thin on the ground. You are becoming confused between AGW existing and the level of danger it represents to us all.
If responsibility for history is the name of the game then that should apply to all across the board with no let offs. What you want is us to be responsible alone and the upshot is you wish me and mine to take second place in training and employment, you wish me and mine to pay reparations for slavery, you wish me and mine to compensate those suffering from theoretical climate change. 
If taking responsibility for one's history is your expectation what reparations would you expect Islam, by way of the worldwide Ummah, to pay?

So I ask again where is the evidence that AGW represents some form of danger to us and the planet. You say it is there but where is it?

I have responsibility for what I have done, why would you think I have a responsibility for what others have done? 

Most scientist do deal in numbers, the problem of course is that once they present a number it ends up being shown to be wrong. The IPCC reports dealt in many numbers and most have not stood the test of time. I would tend to agree with Happer, some small fraction seems about right as that tends to illustrate its inconsequential nature. Probably is fine in Climate science as the models all indicate probabilities, possibilities, likelihoods and maybes. No way to run science but then it largely is not science it is politics and that is why it is driven by politicians who cannot resist the opportunities that science obliquely presents them with.

I've already suggested a scientific approach here. You use satellites and weather balloons to take samples of atmospheric gases and you see how these vary over time. The equipment you use has been calibrated to a certain accuracy. Some of the best physics lab equipment can measure to many significant figures so your survey would be sensitive to the smallest of changes. With a global 3D survey of gas concentrations you can run a simulation of the overall reflectivity and absorption vs wavelength and compute the global warming effect from additional man-made emissions over time. You can carry all your errors over to give an overall error in your figure. This is how the pros do it. This is how I was trained to do it as well because I went to an old school university where they were meticulous. Now of course if Happer has already done all of this he can give us a talk on how he did it and what he found out. If he can't then all he has is his opinion. This is what we are looking at. Scientists are never persuaded by opinion though. It leaves the jury still out until we have quantitive investigations which are generally peer-reviewed, but a word of warning, peer review is no guarantee. You are supposed to read it and perform your own peer review.

Bur both CO2 and urban areas trap heat. And no heat is localised. And urban heat islands are not necessarily small areas - look at the pictures of Earth taken from space or by satellite. The expansion of urban areas is incredible. Also you have to consider that urban areas are very much warmer than rural ones - up to 10C hotter given a similar location. Yet we're asked to believe that this effect is insignificant by the climate change bodies.