How anybody can create anything but confusion starting from the extreme “frozen earth” hypothesis is beyond me .

****”Listen, Kid, do you have no idea how offensive it is for you to give me a homework assignment? Find one of your parents and ask them about it.”

This is the weirdest response yet on WUWT.

First off, my parents are in their 70s and live 2,500 miles away from me.

I like being called “kid” but, technically, I no longer qualify for anything but middle age.

And you, my friend Theo, were the first to dole out “homework.”

Now, Mr. Watts, you did not answer my “accusatory idiotic question.” Do you divulge the entirety of the information on any given subject when you post on WUWT? Or do you only post opinions and information that lead to a certain conclusion?

On average world temperature is +15⁰C. This is sustained by the atmospheric Greenhouse Effect 33⁰C. Without the Greenhouse Effect the planet would be un-inhabitable at -18⁰C. The Biosphere and Mankind need the Greenhouse Effect.

Just running the numbers by translating the agents causing the Greenhouse Effect into ⁰C:
• Greenhouse Effect = 33.00⁰C
• Water Vapour accounts for about 95% of the Greenhouse Effect = + 31.35⁰C
• Other Greenhouse Gasses GHGs account for 5% = ~1.65⁰C
• CO2 is 75% of the effect of all GHGs = ~1.24⁰C
• Most CO2 in the atmosphere is natural, more than 93%:
• Man-made CO2 is less than 7% of total atmospheric CO2 = 0.087⁰C:
So closing carbon economies of the Whole World could only ever achieve a virtually undetectable <1/10 ⁰C. How can the Green movement and their supporting politicians think that their remedial actions can limit warming to only + 2.00 ⁰C?

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wy0_SNSM8kg

So the probability is that any current global warming is not man-made and in any case such warming could be not be influenced by any remedial action taken by mankind however drastic.

This prospect should be greeted with Unmitigated Joy:
• concern over CO2 as a man-made pollutant can be discounted.
• it is not necessary to damage the world’s economy to no purpose.
• if warming were happening, it would lead to a more benign and healthy climate for all mankind.
• any extra CO2 is already increasing the fertility of all plant life and thus enhancing world food production.
• a warmer climate, within natural variation, would provide a future of greater opportunity and prosperity for human development. This has been well proven in the past and would now especially benefit the third world.

Nonetheless, this is not to say that the world should not be seeking more efficient ways of generating its energy, conserving its energy use and stopping damaging its environments. And there is a real need to wean the world off the continued use of fossil fuels simply on the grounds of:
• security of supply
• increasing scarcity
• rising costs
• their use as the feedstock for industry rather than simply burning them.

The French long-term energy strategy with its massive commitment to nuclear power is impressive, (85% of electricity generation). Even if one is concerned about CO2, Nuclear Energy pays off, French CO2 emissions / head are the lowest in the developed world.

However in the light of the state of the current solar cycle, it seems that there is a real prospect of damaging cooling occurring in the near future for several decades.

And now Man-made Global Warming has become a state sponsored religion.

Walk your talk, netdr. You have been proven wrong several times on this blog. Usually you deny and then run away.

You could not have posted a more ironic statement.

Yes, this is how science works. The irony that your own approach is never to learn, never to retract falsehoods and never to bother even acknowledging criticism seems to have escaped you.