@Billy Mooney:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nobel+laureate+smashes+the+global+warming+hoax

@Billy Mooney:

Socialist States have killed more people in the past 100 years than all other countries combined in the history of this world.

Mao, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot.

When are you going to give up on the big dream?

By the way, unbridled Capitalism is just the other side of the same coin.

Yours Respectfully

J,

Your failure to grasp the reality of climate change is surpassed only by your lack of understanding of socialism.
For example Pol Pot and the Khmer rouge were as far removed from socialism as it’s possible to get. They were a small and relatively powerless rabble until the U.S. bombed Cambodia back into the middle ages in their efforts to crush the development of socialism in that country.

I’ll let the great war correspondent John Pilger explain it to you:

“As a witness to the human consequences of aerial savagery – including the beheading of victims, their parts festooning trees and fields – I am not surprised by the disregard of memory and history, yet again. A telling example is the rise to power of Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge, who had much in common with today’s Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). They, too, were ruthless medievalists who began as a small sect. They, too, were the product of an American-made apocalypse, this time in Asia.

According to Pol Pot, his movement had consisted of “fewer than 5,000 poorly armed guerrillas uncertain about their strategy, tactics, loyalty and leaders”. Once Nixon’s and Kissinger’s B52 bombers had gone to work as part of “Operation Menu”, the west’s ultimate demon could not believe his luck.

The Americans dropped the equivalent of five Hiroshimas on rural Cambodia during 1969-73. They levelled village after village, returning to bomb the rubble and corpses. The craters left monstrous necklaces of carnage, still visible from the air. The terror was unimaginable. A former Khmer Rouge official described how the survivors “froze up and they would wander around mute for three or four days. Terrified and half-crazy, the people were ready to believe what they were told… That was what made it so easy for the Khmer Rouge to win the people over.”

A Finnish Government Commission of Enquiry estimated that 600,000 Cambodians died in the ensuing civil war and described the bombing as the “first stage in a decade of genocide”. What Nixon and Kissinger began, Pol Pot, their beneficiary, completed. Under their bombs, the Khmer Rouge grew to a formidable army of 200,000.

ISIS has a similar past and present. By most scholarly measure, Bush and Blair’s invasion of Iraq in 2003 led to the deaths of some 700,000 people – in a country that had no history of jihadism. The Kurds had done territorial and political deals; Sunni and Shia had class and sectarian differences, but they were at peace; intermarriage was common. Three years before the invasion, I drove the length of Iraq without fear. On the way I met people proud, above all, to be Iraqis, the heirs of a civilization that seemed, for them, a presence.”

http://johnpilger.com/articles/from-pol-pot-to-isis-anything-that-flies-on-everything-that-moves

Yours respectfully

@Clever Jake:

Yes, Socialism. Dictatorship of the Proletariat as prescribed my Marx.

Billy – Did you learn about climate change, socialism, capitalism at the soup kitchen or the dole office?

@Billy Mooney: The issue is really money in politics, oil companies shouldn’t be able to buy politicians so easily, particularly in the US.

Danny Healy-Rae doesn’t have that excuse, can’t imagine him being in the pocket of Exxon-Mobil.

totalitarianism and socialism are separate.

Imp,
Did you learn your rudimentary propaganda techniques in blueshirt or the soldier of destiny HQ?

@Billy Mooney:

Sorry but can you please watch the video and try to engage rationally.

Fifty,
Money in politics is one of the foundation stones of capitalism. They’re inseparable and it won’t be resolved while capital is dominant over Labour. Btw, I think Ray Burke may be able to tell us how easily our own political class can be bought by big Oil.

I might J. When you categorically state that Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot were not socialists.
Cuba has elements of socialism but neither can it be defined as a socialist state

@Billy Mooney:

By the way Billy, I should add that I once believed in Socialism so I am not judging you for doing so. The fact of the matter is anywhere it was ever tried resulted in Holocausts and Famines.
It is an idea which (incorrectly) assumes that nothing exists bar matter.
An ideology solely focused on material wealth.

Marx said that under Socialism, Man would be truly free. He could choose any job he would like.”He would be free to fish by day and hunt by night”

In reality he was fished by day and hunted by night.

@Billy Mooney:

I have no doubt that you are sincere about your love for the poor, however man’s true freedom lies in his pursuit of truth.

Interesting talking to you.Catch up with you later if that is okay.

As I said J. When you engage rationally and admit that Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot were not socialists then I’ll try to cure your ignorance. Not that I suspect I’ll have much success.

Btw, Socilaists believe in basing the organization of our society on the material reality of the world around us. Matter in other words. What would you have us base ourselves on? Religion maybe?

Billy loves the poor. He’s basically the Soviet Jesus

The job of socialists is to eliminate poverty by establishing a socioeconomic system which divides the resources of society equitably among those that have produced them, the working class. That won’t be achieved through religion.

It’s outrageous to suggest that only people with approved views could hold office. That’s pure fascism.

How is it made?
Who makes it?
Who gets to buy it?

How we answer these questions becomes the foundation of Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism.

If we respond to the questions, as the State or Country, then we have Communism.
If we have a mixed answer the State and the People, then we have Socialism.
If the public answers all questions, then we have pure Capitalism.

We should also note that all modelling of socialism theories does not have to become oppressive. A separation of structure and control, the fundamentals in the model. We can view ‘communism’ as totalitarianism socialism. The flatter we make the model, the more cooperative owned, the deeper methodologies of libertarianism can be extrapolated into a cohesive societal model. The brick in the wall we come against is, who will guard the guards themselves?

Democratic Socialism in Capitalistic form is what most countries have. Public Health, Welfare, Public Schools and even Childcare with subsidisation are all Socialism based concepts. It is the progressive society that has a balance of Social Systems with Capitalism based economies. That is in context to what we have today. However, capitalism has proven to produce an ever increasing divide in society between the Elite and everyone else.
https://goo.gl/6irUOG

Padraig,
I’m heading out now but I would argue that all wealth is produced collectively. No individual capitalist can or will create anything of value without the collective resources of society behind them.

Therefore the collectively created wealth should be distributed collectively instead of accumulating into the hands of capital as occurs under our present system.

The solution is to manage our economic activity with the objective of meeting human need (in the broadest sense) rather than for the purposes of accumulating profit into private hands as occurs under capitalism.

The reality is that there is more than enough real resources (land, energy labour etc) to provide everyone on the planet with proper nutrition, a decent home, healthcare, education and a job. It’s a political and ideological choice to deny people these basics.

It’s important to differentiate between money and real wealth/ resources. Money is how we measure wealth and also a claim on society’s resources. Our fiat currency money is created (and deleted) at will on the computer keyboards of the world’s commercial and central banks. At a macro level there can never be a shortage of a fiat floating currency like the Euro.

In contrast to instant availability of money, the real wealth of goods and services that we all depend on is created by the labour and skill of the working class from the raw material of the planet. Everything from the food in our bellies to the clothes on our backs right up to the most sophisticated technology is made by the workers.

Money is a claim on that real wealth produced by the working class and this is where money derives it’s power. The capitalist system peddles the illusion that there is a shortage of money (balance the books, reduce the deficit, live within your means etc) in order to oppress and control the working class who are the real creators of wealth. Fundamentally, money is just a tool to measure and allocate those resources produced by the working class.

Private capital only ever undertakes productive activity in order to accumulate profit, which in effect is the unpaid labour of the working class. Capitalist enterprise will not create a single job or produce a single product or service without the expectation of profit. The profit that capital seeks to accumulate takes the form of money. And at a macro level, money is created by simply pressing keyboards in central and commercial banks.

So following the logic, society as a whole has no requirement for a system of productive activity with the sole purpose of accumulating the money which is instantly available at a government/central bank level. Instead the focus of productive activity should be to meet human need instead of to generate profit for private capital owners. This is the sustainable future for humanity and it’s called socialism.

Wally? Why did you change your name?

@Billy Mooney:

Socialists eliminate poverty by eliminating the poor.

@j scotus eriugena:

It is quite fitting that this thread has turned into the pros and cons of Socialism, which justifies a point I made on a previous article that Climate Change is just an excuse to form a World government. Global Communism, because as Lenin said, God Rest Him, “Communism cannot exist while there are still Non Communist Countries on Earth.”

@j scotus eriugena: regarding the climate scam, the SJW’s have failed to notice that the biggest investors in the renewable power fraud are the oil companies that they hate so much

@Billy Mooney:

Mutualism Socialism (collectivism) could be a transfer methodology, Billy, whereby ownership follows the idea of cooperatives. It is the endpoint of the flat model; libertarianism meets collectivism. Communities use a collective to make plans, and everybody owns everything together. Scarcity is addressed by resources calculated in a global context and thus served to the needs of all.

Like any of these models, it is getting them started that is the problem. There are plenty of communities around the world that operate in a collectivism context.

There are fundamental problems that society is not ready for as yet, for example, I like to drive an X5 BMW. Some of the worries in trying to create that ‘utopian’ society are will it just become a homogeneous community of suicidal people.

@Billy Mooney:

Materialism is a religion, and a false one.

There is more to existence than Material. For example, Faith, Hope, Love.
These are undeniable realities of our world, the greatest of these is love, being the basis for our existence.

Regarding whether Mao, Hitler and Stalin were socialists or not, let’s take a look at the definition of socialism from the oxford dictionary:

Socialism: 1[mass noun] A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

@MackPilon:

Good Point. Entitlement is rife.
Socialism says that I am entitled to the fruits of your labour.
like plain old fashioned slavery.

@j scotus eriugena: Simplistic – understandable for a definition but does not extrapolate the actual theories of Socialism. People try and distill it to a digestible chunk but it does not work like that. In most cases, a car cannot run you over without a driver. Indeed, that is a good metaphor for Marx & Engels theories that continue to evolve today. Marx & Engels ideas and philosophy as that is what they were philosophers continued to evolve and we see manifestation everywhere. One of the most recent would be the sharing economy.

In fact, a good case in point would be today. Whereby once we worked to live now we work to survive. One does not need to perform mental high jump to understand that Capitalism proved the case for Socialism. Designed to address the shortcomings of Capitalism. Indeed, the end point of capitalism shifts into the perverse nature of oppressive socialism.

https://youtu.be/Vc6PK7aqTO0

@Pádraig Ó Raghaill:

Thanks for replying. People would be better served by being grateful for what they have. Live a frugal life and give endlessly to the poor.
Socialism as prescribed my Marx consists of some dangerous ideas, like Vanguardism.
The idea that the ends justifies the means is a horrible ideology.
It has led to mass murder, torture and imprisonment of the innocent as well as induced famines.
Now we are led to believe that The Earth is overheating partly because of overpopulation. The UN have said that the optimal population for earth is about one billion, therefore they want the other 6 billion to just go out of business (hence why they are so keen on abortions).
But all will be justified by the ends and the Utopian Dream.

@Crimson: I can sometimes handle that dude, despite, in this case, he is fundamentally wrong for more reasons than you could hit by swinging the small head of an alt right pundit.

@Crimson:

I’d say you’re after triggering a few lads now.

@j scotus eriugena: Yes and no. Capitalism has set fire to the Middle East, and throughout history, we can put a context to some of the worst crimes against humanity in a similar context. It is more than people do bad things rather than a socio-economic model.

For example: Early foundations of the British Labour party were formed in Ethical Socialism. I think it was the early 1920′s from memory. Then we have the ideas of universal income, something that will likely happen. Or we can look at the most common components like public schools, hospitals and alike. Inequality is breeding civil unrest, you only need to look out of the window to find the issues created by selfish capitalism based policy.

Where problems historically exist is not so much in the model but the governance. Bad policy just like in our own systems hurts people in the same way. When you then add the layer of totalitarianism, fascism and alike you gain the worst models of political theory.

We tend to blame the model which is like blaming the car instead of the driver that ran you over.

@j scotus eriugena: There is a very simple way of finding out whether a country is socialist. Does the community or do the worker’s control the means of production e.g. run the factories they work in, the fields they plough, etc.? If the answer is no, then you do not have a socialist country.
Lenin set up the Soviet Union and correctly called it ‘state capitalism’ which is where the state takes over from private business. Nothing else changes.

“It is more “that” people do bad things.

Typo correction

@Jason Byrne:

“Does the community or do the worker’s control the means of production e.g. run the factories they work in, the fields they plough, etc.? If the answer is no, then you do not have a socialist country.”

Where has this ever happened? Correct me if I’m wrong but I would say nowhere

“Lenin set up the Soviet Union and correctly called it ‘state capitalism’ which is where the state takes over from private business. Nothing else changes.”

Agreed, that’s all that will ever happen, the state will take over and turn it into a monopoly.

@Padraig He made some good points wouldn’t you agree?

@Pádraig Ó Raghaill:
Thanks for replying in a rational manner. Please see my reply below also. Ethical Socialism is the the thin end of the wedge. Perceived material inequality is no doubt causing civil unrest, there are many things wrong with our economy and the way it is run. That does not mean that Communism is the only answer. A key factor behind the concentrated wealth is interest based lending ( A practice that had been outlawed in Europe for 1000 years).

“Or we can look at the most common components like public schools, hospitals and alike.”

I think you’ll find that it was the Catholic Church that introduced such things to west and not socialism.

“Inequality is breeding civil unrest, you only need to look out of the window to find the issues created by selfish capitalism based policy.”

Civil Unrest is caused by Greed. So Yes, selfish capitalism is a factor, but I am not defending Capitalism per se I am criticising Socialism and all it’s trappings.

Kind Regards

@Crimson: Not overly, he does what many populist pundits do by presenting simplistic soundbites to complicated subjects.

@Pádraig Ó Raghaill:

I am sorry if I came across that way. What points that I made would you disagree with?

@j scotus eriugena: I can understand your thinking; however, we get into a problem by rejecting the ‘philosophy’ of Marx ideas. We tend to get stuck on the bad bits and forget that models transform or adapt to modern thinking.

Look at Science, for example, it very much gets stuck on what is profitable, you could say thinking and development stagnate by the desire it must produce an output of profit. We see this across most academic disciplines; it also stops people studying more then what I call the modern Blue Collar subjects.

Finland is the only country that has a reducing homeless rate and it is achieving this by giving homes to the homeless. We already spend billions on ineffective policy, the war on drugs being a prime example.

There is also the incorrect idea that reward must be monetary based as though money only motivates people. Whereby the reality is many are motivated by creating something new, or finding a cure, or developing a new clean technology.

The biggest driver of inequality is scarcity that creates a high price of given product. That, however, is addressed by what is coined as magic boxes. 3D printing could be called a magic box; houses will soon be able to be inexpensively printed so we reduce the scarcity.

I never like to reject things at wholesale as it forms an extremism, there is lots of good in social systems without the trappings of socialism in a traditional context.

If we had smarter fiscal policies that did not reward offshoring, that comes at the expense of local markets it would go a long way. Economic globalisation has driven inequality at the expense of the everyday person worldwide. The needs of the many do need to outweigh the needs of the few.

@j scotus eriugena: “populist pundits” was not yourself rather the YouTube video – I actually addressed that at Crimson, J –

@Billy Mooney: you and your opinions, some of them are mildly amusing but this one just plays into the hands of those who cannot think for themselves and border on being dangerous.

J, Socialism existed in Russia for about 6 years after the 1917 revolution. It then collapsed under external attack where every capitalist power on the planet had forces in Russia to crush the workers revolution understanding correctly the threat that it posed to their hegemony. In this environment Stalins bureaucratic subversion of the socialist state was able to progress until all the Bolsheviks had been killed, imprisoned or exiled.

Jho, What exactly is dangerous about proposing a different socioeconomic system which would provide for the welfare of all?

Billy what about the class that produces sweet .. all.

Don’t be so hard on yourself Shawn.

@Shawn O’Ceallaghan: You pay for them one way or the other. Not to mention the greater percentage of welfare is incubated by adverse social and demographic policy. Inequality just breeds more of it, so it takes better thought to progress society. Hence countries like Finland addressing the problems with progressive policy.

@PaulJ:
THOUGHT-CRIME
Unbelievable.
Forcing people to agree with you and if they don’t, they are threatened, held to ransom, fined, or jailed or not allowed hold office.

It is a theory, it is an aspect of the scientific or natural world, scientists disagree, it is like history open to question, scrutiny and difference of opinion. Orwell would see he was mild in his expressions of tyrannical oppressive control of human thought.

@Pádraig Ó Raghaill:

You make a good point on a lot of issues as did Karl Marx, the main problem is that we cannot trust man enough to put so much power into the hands of the few.
Who made Di Caprio global minister for justice?

Socialism is precisely the opposite of putting power into the hands of the few. It’s about running society on a democratic basis in the workplaces and communities right up to regional, national and international level.

@j scotus eriugena:

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

It is mankind’s Achilles heel -

@j scotus eriugena:
Orwell fought with and wrote about his experiences in the Spanish Civil War. He fought with socialists and anarchists who controlled Catalonia and Aragon. The workers ran the workplaces democratically and the peasants owned the land they worked on.

In the Russian Civil War there were a third group, the Blacks. It held what was known as the ‘free territories of the Ukraine.’ They were agrarian based for the most part but the peasants owned the land and there was direct democracy in towns, factories and in the fields. They were slaughtered eventually by Lenin and Trotsky. The area contained about 7 million people.

Contemporary examples are the Chiapas province in Mexico and the Zapatista movement which is run along the lines of direct democracy, socialism, worker’s land ownership, etc. Another is Rojava in Syria and the Kurdish resistance run along socialist lines. It’s easy to find information of these. You’ve probably heard of the Kurdish women fighters, they’re socialist.

There are also worker coops all over South America which are run democratically by the workers.

@Billy Mooney: It wasn’t Stalin that killed socialism, it was Lenin and Trotsky. Read about Nestor Makhno in the Ukraine and the Kronstadt rebellion.
Seizing state power is tyrannical regardless of your intention. AAA is controlled by Trotskyites and Trotsky was a mass murdering psycho who’s only contribution to political thought was to Neoconservatism.
I despise the system we have now but I despise yours just a much if not more.

The conversation here proves that most debates about climate change is really about ideology wars. The right are convinced that the left are using it to create a single world government and will go to extraordinary lengths to deny basic facts for fear that losing the debate is a surrender to communism. Ridiculous!

@Billy Mooney: What did the second S in USSR stand for ??

@Billy Mooney:

Hi Billy,

I don’t suppose you have made the connection between the policies promoted world wide on the back of the Climate change fraud, and the Austerity it has caused for the most vulnerable and poorest in society, both here at home and across the globe. I also suspect, by your throw away reference to the ”reality of Climate change” that you, like Mr. De Caprio, have no clue in the world about Climate science.

@LynchTrea: [alt] left and [alt] right are both fractured logic, so personally would not pay much attention to either.

Billy:

Two questions for you.

1) You have the regular propensity to type very detailed and long messages. In all the comments you have typed here, have you ever convinced someone here to change an alternative view to that of yours?

2) When you were growing up, is this how you imagined you would get your kicks?

@PaulJ:

Idiotic poll/suggestion!
If we really want to save the world then we “really” have to do something about population control. If we don’t then we are Fu*k$d!

@JoseMacPhisto: This is a common tactic of AAA/SP members. I have a friend in it and when I respond to a post he replies with a copy paste answer he’s been told to respond with, like a Billy comment.

@LynchTrea:
I think there is a difference between “denying facts” and challenging them, subjecting them to test. What alarmists want to do is to suspend the normal scientific principles and have their assertions accepted without question.

@Billy Mooney: AAA/PBP would swing our borders wide open and move to protect newcomers over the existing population and it would spell the end of our culture as we know it, somebody needs to recognise that all those coming here are trying to buy up cash businesses which make it easier to avoid tax and bring more of their kind in here, if ye cannot see it you should get out of politics.

@Clever Jake: Like, that wasn’t real socialism and stuff? Coz like, socialism is like about helping people and stuff, right? There are no dictatorships under TRUE socialism man, the socialism I have in my head where themostvulnerablemembersofoursociety become rich through compassionate state action.

The computer models of the earths climate are very complex There is some doubt about the cause of climate change
Even the satellite data is argued about by Nobel prize winning scientists
A fatwa against unbelievers is not a good idea

@John003: there is rarely a thing such as scientific certainty. What there is in this case is a credible and plausible hypothesis which best fits the data currently available and which it would be potentiall self destructive for humanity to ignore.

The economic and humanitarian costs of addressing the problem before the potential tipping point are outweighs by the benefits of avoiding the tipping point.

The risk are too great, even if not provable conclusively, to ignore.

On the other hand no reputable and credible scientists have yet demonstrated that climate change does not have an anthropogenic cause as the primary factor.

I think that it makes sense to go fir now with the majority of scientific assessment unless it until, it can be credibly contradicted.

The politicians who deny climate change are highly conservative , reactionary and totally supportive of the fossil fuel sectors, often funded by the oil, gas, coal and related sectors. In other words, the climate change deniers are usually influenced by a combination of religious fundamentalism and financial incentives from the fossil fuel sectors.

Mary
The Healy Raes think it’s ok to drink and drive. It’s a disgrace but you can’t ban them from public office.

The founder of Greenpeace DR. Patrick Moore said ” The contention that human emissions are now the dominant influence on climate is simply a hypothesis, rather than a universally accepted scientific theory. It is therefore correct, indeed verging on compulsory in the scientific tradition, to be skeptical of those who express certainty that “the science is settled” and “the debate is over”

@MackPilon: scientific progress operates largely on the basis of falsification of scientific hypotheses.

That said, and based on current data and models, it is more probable than not probable that anthropogenic factors are involved in climate change and that climate change is likely to be harmful to humanity.

@Micheal OLainn: None of the ‘computer models’ have been in any way accurate. The unfalsified global satellite data of the UAH shows 2016 a bit cooler than 1998,

There has not been any significant warming for over 20 years now even as CO2 emissions rise [Remote Sensing Systems satellite data] even if the readings from sensors in American car-parks and airports suggest otherwise.

Well that’s an interesting story but not science Biggest storm ever in Ireland was 1831
Costal erosion has been around for a while ask the Dutch

@MackPilon: Trinity College Dublin School of Geography is currently doing a survey on coastal erosion and its causal factors.

It is quite possible and plausible that climate change is causing an acceleration of coastal erosion but the position is not yet established based on empirical examination.

@John003: Ireland is not as low lying as the Netherlands. Comparison of Ireland and the Netherlands is invalid.

@Micheal OLainn: Rosslare Strand extended up to the Raven in Wexford , until 1924

@MackPilon: on its own, that is not indicative on either direction. Coastal erosion takes place without climate change. The question is whether climate change is putting more energy into the seas and possibly accelerating such erosion.

The causal factors in coastal erosion in Ireland is under investigation. It is possible but, as yet unproven, that climate change is a factor in coastal erosion.

@MackPilon: “one volcano could make more difference to global warming than humans ever could”

That’s just factually wrong. The combined output annually from volcanos is substantially lower than human’s contribution of CO2. Volcanic CO2 emissions equal about 300 million tonnes a year (upper estimates), while human CO2 emissions equal 30 billion tonnes a year.

It’s not even close.

@Seán Ó Briain:

But human activity’s contribution to total CO2 is only 3% and we are supposed to believe that a part of that 3%, probably about 0.5% is the problem.

@Seán Ó Briain: CO2 is not the driver of climate as is claimed and Joe has pointed this out below. Dust and gases such as Sulphur Dioxide have had major impacts on the earth for as long as it has existed and as Dr Lovelock pointed out , just one volcano could cause havoc

@Joe: You’re arguing from personal incredulity. You simply don’t understand the carbon cycle.

Earth has a natural carbon cycle which removes CO2 to maintain a balance. Humans are adding CO2 to that cycle, without removing any. Not only are we not removing any, we are also cutting down huge areas of forest which naturally balance the levels.

A simple analogy is to run the tap in your sink. Run the water on one tap at a level so when the water reaches that little outlet that stops the sink from overflowing, it doesn’t fill any further – and there is sufficient relief from the outlet to stop it overflowing.

The level of water should remain the same.

Now run the second tap. This can be human’s contribution to CO2. Even if you run it slowly, it will eventually overflow the sink. That’s what is happening with our atmosphere. We are slowly building up atmospheric CO2 over time, and without sufficient ability to remove it – it will continue to grow and continue to increase the amount of heat trapped.

It’s a very simple concept to understand.

@Seán Ó Briain: One-third of Man’s entire emissions since the Industrial Revolution has occurred since February 1997. Yet the 225 months since then show no global warming at all. With this month’s RSS (Remote Sensing Systems satellite) temperature record, the Pause beats last month’s record and now stands at 19 years 10 months.’

@Seán Ó Briain: thank you for that excellent and coherent exposition. It is informative.

@Micheal OLainn: and Sean acknowledge that the was a MWP and Little Ice age ?

@MackPilon: You are parroting articles made by Christopher Monckton, a guy who has little to no understanding of climatology. His comments have been debunked time and time again. Potholer54 made a great video series debunking his claims, which are worth watching.

“One-third of Man’s entire emissions since the Industrial Revolution has occurred since February 1997. Yet the 225 months since then show no global warming at all.”

Well, that’s just factually inaccurate – since the warmest years on record have been from 1998 to 2015. The claim that there has been no warming since 1997 is simply incorrect. There has been a measurable increase since then.

Anything else you need debunking?

And if you’re actually interested in looking at the data – it’s freely available here: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201604 and here: http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

@Seán Ó Briain:

Personal incredulity? Science is about judgement and facts, not belief Seán.

Your simple analogy is nonsense, it s basis is that there is an optimum level of CO2, which is nonsense. It also presupposes that CO2 drives feedback only in one direction when it can be positive or negative.

The climate system and the role of CO2 cannot be replicated by a simple model born in a schoolyard.

@Joe: “Science is about judgement and facts, not belief Seán.”

It is about facts. So you should listen to the people who study climatology. It is their view based on a huge array of evidence that humans are greatly contributing to climate change.

@Seán Ó Briain:

I have read extensively on the subject and the evidence does not support your view.

Probably the main tenet of the AGW case is the idea of the recent temperatures being unprecedented and that crumbles if you accept the existence of the Medieval Warm period.

The planet has been much warmer and much colder than it is today.

@Joe: “I have read extensively on the subject and the evidence does not support your view.”

The evidence does support my view, as do the overwhelming majority of climate scientists who study this topic inside and out.

“Probably the main tenet of the AGW case is the idea of the recent temperatures being unprecedented and that crumbles if you accept the existence of the Medieval Warm period.”

The medieval warm period doesn’t refute climate change, or man’s contribution to the current change of climate.

Also – stating “planet has been much warmer and much colder than it is today” is a strawman argument. Nobody has stated that the climate doesn’t change naturally. The argument is that the current rate of change in our climate is attribute to elevated CO2 levels, and damage to Earth’s natural ability to maintain carbon levels.

You obviously haven’t read anything on the topic – at least, not from any respected climatologist. Your arguments are full of red herrings and strawman arguments. I expected no less.

@j scotus eriugena: I would not select a geologist, however distinguished, to give scientific guidance on the role of anthropogenic factors in climate change. It’s the wrong discipline to examine this issue.,

Which other factors in particular Dec? I agree there are many other factors which affect climate (eg. Milankovitch cycles) however they operate on a much longer timeframe that what we’re seeing (ie. over thousands of years, not decades).

@Micheal OLainn: Why do you think that it is mostly “anthropogenic factors” that gets discussed in these types of debate forums? When the real cause of climate change is much more diverse with many bigger factors that have an effect on the earths climate?

@Avina Laaf: If you believe in Milankovitch cycles, then you’ll know that the earth is creeping towards the end of the current cycle…

That doesn’t answer the question Dec – what other factors in particular are you talking about that have been proven to alter climate patterns within decades?

ps. I’m not sure what you mean by ‘the end’ of the cycle – cycles don’t have ends or beginnings.

@Avina Laaf: Solar effects, Geological effects, Atmospheric effects and the impact from biologic life…. All have been playing a huge part in global warming and cooling since forever. These are obviousI’m just stating the obvious…
Glaciation periods have beginnings and endings… We’re about to head into a new glacial period. The last of the glaciers will melt and because of the current warming, causing more extreme weather, lots of clouds, that will produce a global albedo effect, that in turn will bring about a period of sustained cooling, New glaciers will form. Population will decrease and the planet will heal.

Dec, you’re still choosing to ignore the fundamental point – I’d agree that the things you listed are known forcings, but they’re known to operate over thousands of years, not decades. I repeat, name one single non-anthropogenic factor which has been proven to affect climate over atime period of decades (massive sustained volcanic eruptions or meteorite strikes don’t count – we haven’t had either).

@Avina Laaf: There is no proof, only hypotheses. What has happened over a period of decades? Global tempratures have risen and dropped back… The hottest day on record was in this decade, but it only replaced the previous hottest day after nearly 100 years… How long have humans been keeping records of global temperatures? Not long enough to be able to prove anything… But they can hypotheses… Doesnt make them right

@Dec Rowe:
Solar effect theory has been proven untrue. Charles D Camp. Sun has been cooling over the past decades, completely irrelevant to climate change happening.

That “only replaced the previous hottest day after nearly 100 years” is nonsense too. The day you are trying to use was only recorded in the US not the world, before we started to use satellites and other equipment. The facts are there has been an increase decade after decade and it’s speeding up.

@Stephen Coveney: Can you prove that this same situation of temp increase didn’t occur at some other time in the past? Like a time when humans didnt exist? And yes, the sun is cooling, it has just entered a new solar cycle and is at a minimum, i’m sure you know that. But if you are trying to say that the sun has no effect on climate and its constant state of change, then I’m amazing how it is that you can read the comments on here while your head in is your @rse!

@Dec Rowe:
Course it has an effect, just not one ANYWHERE close to what you think it does.
Cheers for the last sentence, classy

@Dec Rowe:
Oh and just saw your question “Can you prove that this same situation of temp increase didn’t occur at some other time in the past?”
Evidence has shown that there was a 4C rise from 22000BC to 9000BC. if we continue on our path we should have the same rise in 100 years.
It is happening, it is humans.

What I meant to ask was, can you prove it didn’t happen in such a short period of time in the past as its happening now? NO, you can’t because it wouldn’t show in core samples for short periods, only for long periods! And you were not there… I’m sure core samples taken in a few millennia will show the same results as the ones you just mentioned, but it won’t show this short period of temp rise we are seeing now! You know the one that all the scar mongers are going on about?

Tree core samples showed a short temp rise period about 1000 years ago, probably a quicker and hotter rise than the one happening now… It happens … Apologies for the head in @rse comment…