thegreatdivide wrote on May 12^th, 2023 at 1:29pm:



And that is all you are left with after claims of millions of deaths from fossil fuels and PM2.5.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 12^th, 2023 at 6:35pm:



And NOTHING to do with millions dying from FF usage. thegreatdivide wrote on May 12^th, 2023 at 6:35pm:



And once you again you have failed to provide evidence of a climate emergency. You keep resiling to "I am an AGW agnostic".

So one is current and one is future.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 12^th, 2023 at 7:32pm:



It is your claim. And you haven't posted any evidence, apart from statistical studies. And now you want me to do the work for you.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 12^th, 2023 at 7:32pm:



So opinions mean more than facts. Thanks for that. The ONLY proof of AGW is the models.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 12^th, 2023 at 7:32pm:



Models are not science. You can't seem to grasp that simple fact. The models that can't do clouds, one of the most important things in climate.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 12^th, 2023 at 10:32pm:



Nope. They don't. Autopsies revealed smoking kills.

" Findings of primary lung tumours in the autopsied bodies of German research clinics rose dramatically in the second half of the 19th century, and even more dramatically in the first decade of the 20th. Isaac Adler summarised this evidence in 1912, in the world's first monograph on lung cancer, noting that the incidence of malignant neoplasms of the lung seemed to show ‘a decided increase’. Adler mentioned the ‘abuse of tobacco and alcohol’ as one possible cause, while also commenting that the subject was ‘not yet ready for final judgment’."

https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/21/2/87

You are as dumb as a bunch of rocks.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 12^th, 2023 at 10:32pm:


The IPCC relies on  models. The CMIP6 models that run too hot. The CMIP6 models that can't do clouds. That's why they have a plethora of algorithms to cover facts they don't know. Statistics can't tell you what the temperature was yesterday, let alone on a day 100 years ago.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 13^th, 2023 at 11:37pm:



Statistical studies can give an estimate of the number of deaths. HOWEVER, first you need a database of proven deaths and then extrapolate to the broader community. It still remains an estimate with wide parameters for error margins. It will always vary if compared to the general community, as smokers' behaviour changes. Fewer smokers and the statistics will go down in relation to the general community. For it to be more accurate, you need a comparison to total smokers, which also varies.

BUT first you need the database based on autopsies.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 13^th, 2023 at 11:37pm:


So tell us what statistics are saying about catastrophic global warming. As usual, YOUR CLAIM - YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

You mean the models that run too hot show a chance of catastrophic global warming? Do you want  that pinch of salt?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 14^th, 2023 at 1:12pm:



Please show where the IPCC has claimed Catastrophic Global Warming.

I will give you a hint...It hasn't. Some messenger, more like Chinese whispers.

greggerypeccary wrote on May 14^th, 2023 at 2:32pm:



Now show me in the report where it actually says that. NOT headlines from a media source.

And I mean the Physical Science Basis, not  the other reports.   

You would think it would be here.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/chapter-11/