‘wasted wind’)

To be clear, all the references to where to find the details of the research are proof that these were proper research papers and they got published. Research arguing against AGW is never published in articles.

All the research was done by believers of AGW, and all have some component of "humanity caused this" in the content.

So these effectively intend to show AGW is true.

The outcome is contradictory conclusions, all apparently researched, peer reviewed and published, and several of them were published in the same publication at close but different dates. There is a long list, so it can't be written off as an isolated aberration.

The consequence for the believers is that whatever happens it was predicted and therefore proves AGW.

The consequence for the remainder of us who can think for ourselves is that if AGW produces diametrically opposite conclusions then NEITHER can be true.

I know which side of the fence I am on. You are free to choose yours, but be prepared to explain why BOTH conflicting conclusions are concurrently true.

Milankovitch tried. His "constant" is not a bad predictor of a pattern, though it doesn't help with the scale of warming or cooling.

Then someone had a really close look at the occasions where Milankovitch didn't predict what happened, and discovered that his "constant" was actually a combination of at least three other cycles and certain combinations of those cycles seemed to explain the occasions where the constant didn't.

As you say, climate is wheels within wheels within wheels, almost ad infinitum, and we are not going to get to a place where it can be properly predicted, though the probability of warmer or cooler is reasonably predictable as part of a long timescale. We are certainly never going to get to the AGW place where the climate just 200 years ago is an accurate representative of climate.

OK, fair enough, I'll see if I can track down the list of titles you gave, and draw my own conclusions.

OK.

OK.

Well, and I'm sure you know better than me, but it doesn't work like that. Apart from questioning the source, I'd have thought most scientists know that coincidence does not equal cause.

Indeed. If those contradictory papers are unequivocal and provide evidence relating to context-similar conclusions. Which I'm sure you think they do.

I know, of course, that you have read the papers and satisfied yourself. I hope you understand that I need to do the same to be convinced of your position.

Right, time to do some reading :-)

Mmm. Many scientists are agnostic abpout AGW, but need to get research funding...

Cae in point: South African PhD student gets grant for studying the effects of using metal oxide as a way to provide oyxgen for coal burning. What comes out is pure CO2. Molten metal is then blasted with aor tio turn it into and oxide afain. Ostensible reasosn for study:

To make coal power stations mire amenable to carbon capture Real reason:

To burn coal more efficiently.

Many projects skip around that bit and just have it in the summary but not in the text. Funding for climate change studies us infinite.

So if you want to study the mating habits of te pepper mothm yiur titrle will be 'impacts of climate change on the matinh habits of te pepper motyh' whicgh gets you trips to warmer places as well tyo study them there. Then you summary will be 'pepper moths in warmer places mate in exactly the same way as pepper moths in other places thus showing the species is immune from any human caused climate change'

Your last sentence confirms to a casual observer that you 'believe in human caused climate change'

Close inspection reveals nothing of the kind,.

Oh there is so much money available for people who can come of with 's*it happens, because Brexit/the EU/Climate Change/Illegal immigration/The far right.'

The internet is awash with the sound of profitable axes being ground...

Of course,

Not necessarily. The problem is to know, which if any predictions are true.

But it's getting less and less relevant as it is dawning on people that all the king's horses and all the king's men wont put CO2 levels back together again.

So we might as well simply deal with whatever does come along and stop wasting money on renewables that basically don't really work

It's been a hot dry year in Europe. Australia has snow. La Niña is on the prowl again. Massive Atlantic hurricanes predicted by NOAA but so far none have been named much and none have made landfall IIRC.

Tropical Storm ANDREA Tropical Storm BARRY Tropical Storm CHANTAL Tropical Storm DEXTER

So 4 tropical storms. No Hurricanes

the Vikings grew crops in Greenland, which hasn't been possible in 700 years.

Glaciers in the Alps are retreating to reveal tree stumps where trees grew a few hundred years ago.

Well his theory shows a weak correlation with climate, yes. But far stronger are massive asteroid strikes, plate tectonics or volcanic eruptions. Some people claim that planetary alignments stirs up Old Earths guts and makes earthquakes and volcanos more likely.

'seemed'

All looking for CYCLES in a chaotic system?

It's all there in chaos theory. Things that look cyclic, but are not.

Well we might, purely by accident...

We cant analyse chaotic systems. We don't have the mathematics and the computers aren't good enough,. That's why we still use wind tunnels.

A good summary. I managed to decode all the "fat finger" typos.

I understand that the number of scientists who originally believed in AGW and then thought about it and became deniers has now gone over the

You can fool some of the people some of the time. The wheels are gradually coming off the AGW wagon.