Roger wrote:

The message
from Terry Fields contains these words:

I don't have the time, or indeed the inclination to carrying on arguing
on this so I will try and keep this reply short.

ditto.

So you believe that the greenhouse effect is nonexistant?

Not necessarily; it may be irrelevant, or overstated, or masked by
other mechanisms.

So why call it a myth?

Because it may be irrelevant, or overstated, or masked by other
mechanisms, and yet one is being taxed on it while not looking,
sounding, or walking like the only mechanism in play.

Such a response is entirely out of keeping with that science hat you are
unsuccessfully trying to wear.

You haven't mentioned any science at all, nor seemingly posted any
responses to my quoting e.g. from the Met Office web site, so please
don't parrot phrases like "(the) science hat you are unsuccessfully
trying to wear".

No proponent of 'global warming' has exer explained why the planet
oscillates between cold and warm states; the best they can do is claim
that human activity is 'partly' to blame and 'might' accellerate
'global warming'.

The crux of the matter is the greenhouse effect. If the effect exists
then mankind is contributing to global warming even if the world is
cooling at the time because mankind is undoubtedly responsible for
discharging huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere.

You say that 'The crux of the matter is the greenhouse effect'; do you
have any evidence for that? It may not be 'the crux' at all.

You have absolutely no evidence that it is not.

You proposed it, I don't have to prove a negative. You prove the
positive - that's how science works.

That snippet I posted from Wikipedia:

In the absence of the greenhouse effect, the Earth's average surface
temperature of 14 °C (57 °F) would be about -18 °C (€“0.4 °F) [3]
[4](Black body temperature of the Earth). "

Suggests that CO2 is major player and one mankind is heavily influencing.

CO2 is the one effect that has been heavily if badly researched, of
the many mechanisms that exist. That doesn't mean it is the most
important, as I said elsewhere, using Met Office publications to back
up my statement.

Feel free to quote any science that supports your statement.

All you are now doing is piling supposition on supposition.

They were reasonable suppositions unlike much that is coming from the
fundamentalist wing of the climate change denyers.

Thanks, but science isn't suppositions, reasonable or otherwise.

If that is the case then 15000 or more of the non supporters have been
incredibly quiet.

Or lack the funding.

Since when has lack of funding stopped publication in peer reviewed journals?

Christ...because the experimentation is costly. You can't do cosmic
ray flux measurements with a Blue Peter approach.

The Wikipedia article I refer to in another post claims in effect that
it is only the greenhouse effect that up to now has made the Earth a
reasonably pleasant place to live.

That's peurile, and a supposition.

The blue-green algae that ruled the CO2-rich world before 'life as we
know it' came along were seemingly quite happy too. Who are you to say
that the planet is a 'reasonably pleasant place to live'?

No it is you that are being puerile unless you happen to be a close
relative of blue-green algae and even then I suspect you would be wrong.
An average surface temperature of minus 18C doesn't seem an ideal
environment for almost all life forms.

I think that point whooshed.

You might be happy to live at minus 18C but I wouldn't be and on that
point I am absolutely sure I am part of a very large majority.

Argumentum ad populem. No place in science.

Apart from an almost-irrelevant Wikipedia reference, and personal
prediliction for being warm, what science do you have to support your
position - I have seen none at all. And you have totally failed to
counter my science-founded points. Do you wish to continue this
non-exchange any further?