Is that supposed to be an answer to this ?
If you don’t know the answer to that - it brings up another far more important question - How much time and effort have you actually put into thinking about whether the Narrative is actually logical and based in any form of science at all ?
What are the major factors that caused you to decide that “CO2 = Global Warmjng” in your eventual decision to become a “believer” ?
Falstaff, here is the relevant section
“(1)The Secretary of State may by order—
(a)amend the percentage specified in section 1(1);
(b)amend section 1 to provide for a different year to be the baseline year.
(2)The power in subsection (1)(a) may only be exercised—
(a)if it appears to the Secretary of State that there have been significant developments in—
(i)scientific knowledge about climate change, or
(ii)European or international law or policy,that make it appropriate to do so, or
(b)in connection with the making of—
(i)an order under section 24 (designation of further greenhouse gases as targeted greenhouse gases), or
(ii)regulations under section 30 (emissions from international aviation or international shipping).
(3)The developments in scientific knowledge referred to in subsection (2) are—
(a)in relation to the first exercise of the power in subsection (1)(a), developments since the passing of this Act;
(b)in relation to a subsequent exercise of that power, developments since the evidential basis for the previous exercise was established.
(4)The power in subsection (1)(b) may only be exercised if it appears to the Secretary of State that there have been significant developments in European or international law or policy that make it appropriate to do so.
(5)An order under subsection (1)(b) may make consequential amendments of other references in this Act to the baseline year.
(6)An order under this section is subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
Regarding your other questions, I have my opinions and you have yours. I respect your opinion and your entitlement to it. I see no reason or benefit in explaining my reasons to you, and have no interest in hearing your reasons.
Namaste
I’m sorry, I don’t accept that a discussion can be had unless we know each other’s reasons for making the choices we have.
Every thoughtful decision has to e based on reasoned thought uness it is simply an act of faith.
Opinions are valueless unless they are backed up by reason ! 
Couldn’t help but smile when I saw this, what with the amount of misinformed and unproven nonsense discussed here, and elsewhere, about climate change.
I’ll keep this short for you;
I have my opinion, you have yours. That is perfectly natural.
I feel no need to validate myself or to explain my reasons for my opinions, partly because I know exactly what sort of response there would be, but I will say that my opinion is based on credible sources which I trust.
I have no desire to try and force my opinions onto anyone else, unlike many others who seem to find this a highly emotive subject.
If you are unable to accept that I feel no need to explain myself to you, frankly that is your problem not mine.
Namaste
Is that what they teach kids in school nowadays about decision making and discussion ?
Well that’s all settled then ! 
- “because everyone else says so !”
I think this thread has been really helpful to those of us who actually HAVE thought about this issue and have bothered to do enough research with an open mind to investigate whether the “Warmist Zealots” have anything real to back up their Religious fervour or not.
It was a decade or more ago that I started looking at what appeared to be a strongly held view that “Man made CO2 was going to be responsible for the collapse of the whole world temperature control system” as exemplified by Al Gore’s now discredited film “An inconvenient truth” - My objective was simply to form an opinion as to whether there was any basis in fact or science to back up this view.
Back then “Global warming” was well - “Global Warming”
Nowadays it has become this remarkable piece of “doublethink”
Now “they” don’t even decide whether it is a “Long” or a “Short” - so "Let’s bet the “straddle” ! 
[Edit - A position which is cleary ridiculous and “WE” will never accept as valid ]
Specifically, in this thread ;
All of the “Deniers” have presented facts and well reasoned arguments.
None of the Zealots have written anything meaningful at all - they have indulged in passive aggressive language and belittlement - and when pressed, the ONLY “reason” they can come up with for their fervent defence is "Because others say so " !
No facts, no evidence, no explanation of a “mechanism” which might conceivably produce such an effect at all !
And when pressed for the basis of their Religion - “I don’t have to explain my faith” !
Well that may be good enough to explain why you attend the Chapel on a Sunday, BUT IT IS NOT “Good enough” for you and your puppet politicians to dip their greedy sticky little hands into MY Pocket !
I wouldn’t know, I’m long finished with school and university, but typical of the sort of nonsense comment you have, regrettably, chosen to turn to. I honestly thought you were better than that.
What is it about this topic, and some other topics I could mention, that brings out the worst in people? Why rant, insult, and ridicule people just because they have a different opinion than you?
If I thought for one moment that you could have a sensible, open-minded conversation about this, I would without hesitation. However, your earlier posts on this thread show that you are not able or willing to do so.
No doubt you will reply to this with your usual overuse of “”, CAPITALS, cheapshots, and the like. I hope this amuses you as much as it does me, but I am done with this “conversation”
I wanted to get more informed on the topic because of this discussion, so decided to check out this Christopher Booker, and his credentials.
He doesn’t appear to be a “leading” source of trust or facts, at least if this Guardian article is to be trusted.
Perhaps there’s something more trusted than this you can suggest?
It was the “Guardian” who Masterminded that “study” which did that “statistical sleight f hand” on how many “scientists” agree with “man made CO2 = Global warming” and converted 65 articles which “Agreed” that there was in fact global warming happening and / or that CO2 made by man had some effect, however small out of 11,944 articles on the subject studied into that 97% Agree figure immediately proior to the Paris “conference”
As for “George Monbiot” - He is the leading proponent of the fiction and his articles are always couched to undermine and denigrate the character of anyone who dares to query his assertions.
Much as @eddieb s contribution above ;[quote=“eddieb, post:134, topic:30013”]
I wouldn’t know, I’m long finished with school and university, but typical of the sort of nonsense comment you have, regrettably, chosen to turn to. I honestly thought you were better than that.
What is it about this topic, and some other topics I could mention, that brings out the worst in people? Why rant, insult, and ridicule people just because they have a different opinion than you?
If I thought for one moment that you could have a sensible, open-minded conversation about this, I would without hesitation. However, your earlier posts on this thread show that you are not able or willing to do so.
No doubt you will reply to this with your usual overuse of “”, CAPITALS, cheapshots, and the like. I hope this amuses you as much as it does me, but I am done with this “conversation”
[/quote]
Booker on the other hand is a real investigative journalist and has written much on the subject of “delusions” of the masses and the politicians by “false prophet scientists” and the attendant pressure groups. His books are meticulously researched and referenced.
One of his classics, which goes into the phenomenon is this one ;
Which is synopsied thus ;
"…From salmonella in eggs to BSE, from the Millennium Bug to bird 'flu, from DDT to passive smoking, from asbestos to global warming, ‘scares’ have become one of the most conspicuous and damaging features of our modern world. This book for the first time tells the inside story of each of the major scares of the past two decades, showing how they have followed a remarkably consistent pattern.It analyses the crucial role played in each case by scientists who have misread or manipulated the evidence; by the media and lobbyists who eagerly promote the scare without regard to the facts; and finally by the politicians and officials who come up with an absurdly disproportionate response, leaving us all to pay a colossal price, which may run into billions or even hundreds of billions of pounds. This book culminates in a chillingly detailed account of the story behind what it shows has become the greatest scare of them all: the belief that the world faces disaster through man-made global warming. In an epilogue the authors compare our credulity in falling for scares to mass-hysterias of previous ages such as the post-mediaeval ‘witch craze’, describing our time as a ‘new age of superstition’…"
This actually contains little about Global Warming - just treats it as “yet another” of these “scares” which it is of course.
His new submission
Goes much further into the phenomenon with special thanks to Irving Janis’ work on “Groupthink”
A pdf can be downloaded here;
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2018/02/Groupthink.pdf
Just in case anyone happens to want to read the discussion, rather than just what the Propagandists have to say about the Author.
It does take a few hours and might not be suitable for those with short attention spans 
Throughout this thread are many many links to evidence from very credible and well qualified people who universally disown the “Manmade CO2 = Global Warming” “Non-Consensus”.
On the other side, there is no evidence presented at all and a definite lack of interest in discussing anything around the issue except how dreadful the “Deniers” are !
Botanic man in action.
Hey F, it is impossible to convince someone who hates technology. Every global alarmist I have met HATES technology, and modern convenience. It is funny to me, yes get rid of DDT, so what that millions of African and South American children die due to Malaria, at least the birds are safe. Oh and before the Tech haters start on me, I do lament the loss of the Ivory Billed Wood Pecker and the past bleaching, and subsequent disease of the Keys coral reefs. But, honestly I will save the kids every time.
Now, think of this also. Without Refrigeration where would civilization be, oooops that’s right most tech haters are in Margret Sanger’s camp. The reality is, until humankind gets an 80% efficient solar cell, MSBR, Cold Fusion, Mr Fusion, ya’ll are stuck with petro power, and even worse for the anti tech crowd if Abiotic Production is a reality, you may be stuck with it longer than you think.
I would suggest you keep an eye on the YellowStone Caldera and the Ring of fire rather than worry about a Modeled theory. The Caldera is just a question of when.
The Ever Life Affirming VIPER
LIBr8 _bob
So are you saying everything presented in the Guardian article about Booker is inaccurate? There are so many examples given…
The bit about his asbestos position worries me, as I unfortunately have members of my family and many of their friends who were exposed to it while serving in the US Navy and are now dealing with health issues related to that exposure.
Maybe there’s some more middle of the road reading out there. Booker’s take on the topic may be at the levels you describe Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” to be. Where’s the middle?
Regardless, I’ll give that PDF a lookover. Thanks!
Best of luck trying to find some of that ! The “Warmist Zealots” simply won’t allow any discussion at all regarding the “Facts” - as you will find out in your travels. According to tthem “The science is proven” - but they won’t even tell you what that science is !
In honesty, watch that vid which @peterma posted - David Bellamy is and was a man of impeccable integrity who was a brilliant and enthusiastic Botanist PhD I remember well from the '90’s - then suddenly he “Disappeared” off the tv.
He says 30,000 scientists agree with him ! - The Guardian say “97%” of scientists are “consensual” - I know who to believe ! 
Bellamy v Monbiot ? no contest !
Note also Al Gore refuses to debate the subject with anyone - much less anyone real !
Well done mate. You are one of very few who actually do want to get to the truth !
I applaud you and will not interfere - but be assured, we have enough knowledge to help, should you need clarification.
I tried to link to Al Gore’s fillum - but it’s gone off you tube - unless you want to pay $2.49 for it. In your circumstances, that may be a good option - just be aware that the “Hockey stick graph” has been exposed as manipulated and falsified. Even IPCC no longer want to talk about it !
The problem is that there are those who declare they know the science, it’s a science that is ever changing and it’s inexact.
Bellamy wrote in 1989 “The profligate demands of humankind are causing far reaching changes to the atmosphere…” but later, after further research he changed his opinion.
James Lovelock (aged 99) is an eminent independent (not funded) scientist, credited with pioneering work on CFC’s and the Ozone.
In the early part of this century he declared that most of Europe would be like the Sahara by 2040 - “We are talking about Paris – as far north as Berlin”.
By 2012 he changed, admitted he “made a mistake”, he slated the alarmists and included the Al Gore documentary as an example of alarmism.
He still believes that warming is happening but at a slower pace than first predicted.
In that interview he commented that scientists are reluctant to admit to error often for fear of losing funding.
Quick synopsis of his interview here:
The Toronto Sun ran a longer piece but the site is heavy with adverts so no link.
Good Grief - is he still alive ? 
I quite liked his “Gaia” concept in a novel “quaint” sort of way.
I suppose at 99 - he feels he can say “it’s slower than I thought” without fear of having to recant that one later !
I know he was a “Friend” and disgreed on many fronts with Richard Dawkins “The Selfish Gene” (Great well thought out book - but not on this subject)
[Edit - I think the point is though that “Nothing is happening” - so they all are having to start “rethinking” - but at what financial penalty to those of us paying for these “research grants”, windmills, abandoned coal mines and the attendance of all those thousands of hangers on at the various “conferences” they put on from time to time Time perhaps to start demanding a refund ! ]
Big E, what up dog. I know you said you were done with this, but I just want to point out something. Science should never be about opinions. For example, I learned from Dr R.P. Feynman the following about Newtonian Physics.
Gravity as the distance increases between any two objects, the gravitational force gets much smaller very fast in an inverse square relationship.
Falling Objects 32’ per second squared, or 32 feet per second, per second
This is true science, not conjecture. I have yet to see any definitive scientific paper that can state the AGW theory, in pure mathematical equations, without using models. A simple math formula that can be explained would go a long way to bolster this theory.
For example, if we want to know how fast something falls on Jupiter, all we need to know is Jupiter’s mass, one variable, well in a vacuum anyway. Now what if you were say that Jupiter’s mass was variable and that variability would be aggregated over a months time, with the mass being assigned an arbitrary Statistical weighting for each day of the month. So Mondays would count as a 10 weighting and Fridays would count as a 1, now lets say, for whatever reason it is in your favor that things would be thought of as falling slower than they really are. So you know that Mondays are Jupiter’s lightest days and Fridays are Jupiter’s heaviest days. By weighting your data to lean “light”, the calculations for the average speed of a falling object on Jupiter would be lower than it actually is. And even better, what if there were areas on Jupiter where the mass is even less, so you take your readings from these areas, on Mondays, so now you biased the “Model” to even less mass, meaning less speed. Honestly you see my point I am sure.
Frankly what has been proven about AGW is the fact that people lie, this includes scientists. From the Hockey Stick to the weather stations positioned in areas of Jet Wash at the airports to the overwieghting of cities (please see cities as a thermal sink), there are enough holes in this puppy that if it were a boat, it would have been at the bottom by now.
Here is one other Scientific fact. Out of the Whole infrared spectrum (700nm - 1mm) there are only three narrow bands of wavelength that C02 will absorb. I’m sorry, but this is not logical. You see we are not talking Brownian Motion or Spooky action at a distance, but three narrow bands of energy, and this is going to cause total destruction of the earth, frankly, unless there is some kind of “Quantum” weirdness going on I cannot believe this theory, it just does not hold up to scrutiny.
So anyway, I bid you peace.
The Ever Quantum VIPER
LIBER8 _bob
Hmmmmm Burt Rutan, where have I heard that name before?
I think we have to play our role in making the earth green. All of the huge organizations are playing their part in this field. We have to plant as much trees as we can, as all of us can do this. Automotive industry is doing great job for it. Thank you so much!
Nice sentiments Wonel.
There’s nothing wrong with what you say @Wonel.
As you know Carbon Dioxide is an essential plant food and many Horticulturists deliberately raise the levels of Carbon Dioxide in their Greenhouses - to improve the quality and strength of their plants
Hey F, to be able to grow hard algae, you have to add CO2 to your marine aquarium also. And here is a little known fact, if you run out of air at depth, you can breath CO2 for a bit, it will keep you alive anyway, you will have a Yuuuuuge headache when you get to the surface but you will be alive. Oh yeah, where do you get CO2 at depth, from your BC. Now CO, that’ll kill you dead.
The Ever Under The Sea VIPER
“Scientist have suggested dimming the sun to address global warming”
If they are suggesting it you can bet there is already geoenginering happening, my fear is they will make things worse not better, and become very wealthy in the process