Jorginho

Oh well... Peer reviewed analyses of 88.000 papers. Again by two anonymous reviewers btw. As I said: it is the default in any scientic field as far as I know. Greater than 99% consensus on human ...

It is not a theory, it is a scientific fact that current changes in climate are caused by the emissions of greenhouse gasses due to humans. Hence it is anthropogenic. No. Someone who is arguiing on ...

It is the default like I said somewhere else. Not just in climate science.

Until last century, no thought climate changed at all. They used to think boulders etc were a result of floods, not ice. There are copious amounts of evidence for both, not just for natural climate ...

Not of ecologists I can tell you btw but regardless...

Look better, I never had to look. The acknowledgements have been there all the time. Peer review is by default anonymous, so there can be no direct communication (influencing) by the authors. But ...

It seems you feel scientists should not get payed. That is probably your problem with it, But not mine. In science you need to disclose this. They did, no reason to look anything up. It was ...

"Acknowledgments The authors thank Z. Hausfather (University of California, Berkeley) for technical guidance; P. Achakulwisut (Stockholm Environment Institute) for helpful discussions; and two ...

Why do you actually believe that CO2 levels have been vastly higher. Why the blind acceptance of data that is supposed to prove that many many millions years ago CO2 levels were a lot higher than ...

"Climate always has changed" is a thing that you seem to have accepted without any scrutiny, just it is true. This anthropogenic one is not. Both come from the very same scientists and was proven ...

I know but this is always a good training for the kind of replies or reactions I get when I am giving a lecture on the subject. Always good to see how (if) things have developped. We went from: it ...

That also needs to be proven. A lot of words are used, but it is all claims lacking any basis. It is all theory, no proof. So it is funny: piles of proof are discarded without anyproof and ...

""Realclimatescience" is supposedly a source of facts? Did they ever submit any of this for peerreviewing or can they just blurt out whatever they like in the hope that some people actually ...

You can criticise all you want, but without facts it is about as much worth as my 4 yr old and his informed opinion on whatever you want. As per usual in these cases we will never ever get any peer ...

You simply did not understand why I talked about plate tectonics when you argued about much higher CO2 levels and a htriving Earth. If you had any knowledge on climate you would surely know what I ...

Here we go again. Claim upon claim and everything that does not fit into your personal view of the world is corrputed, fraudulent etc. And no proof ever for all these statements is needed. Sounds ...

Well first of all, we need peer reviewed research. One look at the site shows me this is not a place to find peer reviewed research Anyone with any expertise in any scientific field will frown when ...

The problem is that you simply do not know what you are talking about. CO2 levels are not at 450 ppm, they are near 420 ppm. What you write only makes sense if you also are one of the very few ...

You really have no clue. I have done scientific research in this field too, I know geophysicists who chose a different carreer. Namely finding new oilwells etc. They have travelled all over the ...

There are loads of reasons for quite a few companies to debunk all this. They can do so scientifically and their proof is accepted. It is the way science work. There is much more money to be made ...