Yeah uh huh, wrong again chief, I did read those..

Well, the IPCC did opine that none of the natural causes of warming were operating over the last century to cause warming. They did write that they had 95% confidence that human activity was causing all the warming.

What they did was examine the natural causes (that they knew about) and conclude that they were not involved in any warming over the last century; but they presented no evidence to support that conclusion, nothing that could be judged on the science. They left no tracks, none anyway in writing. That, my friend, is not science, it is advocacy.

Much later, no doubt when they realized that the position was indefensible, they amended that to say “major” cause of warming. Either way, that does not stand the test of science. There is no foundation for the claim that the strong warming of the 1930s was the result of the tiny increase in CO2 at the time or that natural forces were a minor factor. And absent natural forces, the cooling of the three decades after World War Two and the most recent two decades of no warming can’t be explained; since CO2 continues to increase, if CO2 were the “major cause” of warming, their should have been warming over those five decades. That’s half a century of experience contrary to the theory.

Unless you are so gullible that you accept the “revised” records that eliminate the hot 1930s, the cooling of 1945–1975, and transform the flat 2000–2017 into a succession of “hottest years on record”. Somehow, I suspect you do. The ends justify all means when your cause is just, even corruption, right?

Nevertheless, you have proved my prediction correct. You did not read the articles. You skimmed them to find a few statements that contradict your beliefs, to find some basis to reject all the rest. Because anything that contradicts your beliefs is by definition wrong, correct? In only the first few paragraphs, you encounter a statement that you disagree with, and on that thin basis, reject the rest as “biased and political”. You reject en masse as “obvious biases” everything that you disagree with. No need to actually name what you disagree with; that would require you to defend your opinion and open your reasons to judgement. No need to defend your opinion when the defects are “obvious”. If any statement disagrees with your opinion, it can only be “bias”; it can’t possibly be that science supports anything contrary to your beliefs, can it?

You say I “cannot help but inject your own biases and politics into them”, and then proceed to write a comment that consists of nothing but “your own biases and politics”.

Your response is boringly typical of the acolytes of the Religion Of Global Warming. They never give an inch on any point. No debate of any science, no admission of the rank politics and self-interest of the Warmists, just a blanket rejection. I’m surprised you did not accuse me of being “a paid tool of the oil companies”. Saving that one for later?

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.