[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I wont bother to check the record but I doubt that I've ever read an admission from you that cooling(1940/70 period) was caused by human activity?

Well, many times this year it's been questioned and I had provided the explanation.

Quote by: xyzer But lets address your reference on the matter..From... New Scientist Environment..A site with a high sounding name but no authenticity? How do we know it represents anything but an agenda? These two paragraphs point out the problem..

If you want to talk about agenda, let's look at your sources, typically speaking they're from the financial section with economist writers. New scientist is a respectable science magazine that reports the latest journal news in layman's format.

Quote by: xyzer The statement about the rise in industrial activity after the end of WW2(1945, doesn't match the cooling that had already started in 1940? There was no major change in industrial production in the USA starting in 1946 and the European countries and Japan were destitute and unable to produce much of anything for a decade or more after the war? Good old logic would tell the less gullible that these two paragraphs are flawed ?

He said that, "The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war.". Now I don't know about you but from 1940, many countries were working overdrive to fuel their war efforts, the US may not have joined the war till 1942 but they manufacture products for the war. After the war, a lot industry had to work in overdrive to fix the damage that was done, or had you forgotten that?

Quote by: xyzer The eruption of the volcano(1963) didn't occur until the end of the cooling period?

I see you seem to have poor reading skills. Let me quote the entire sentence.

In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C, while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the century

Note that part about in addition.

Quote by: xyzer Which was 1940-1970? So that statement is flawed...illogical?

No, the only illogical and flawed are your reading skills.

Quote by: xyzer I don't have time at present to check the rest of this example of an attempt at global warming fraud, but it isobvious. It joins the rest of the illogical hype that surrounds climate change? Omly the the naive believe it implicitly? Naive is a polite word for gullible.I say the author of this gibberish lies!

If you don't read the entire article then how would you know? Furthermore, he isn't pulling the data out of thin air, it is all clearly referenced and accessible.

This is another example that you do not want to face the facts, even when they're undeniable in front of you, you persevere with your denial. It must take a special type of stubbornness to do that. I take my hat off for you.