@vicar.

First of all I have no trust in them and secondly it is not hypocrisy but good forward planning to realise that climate change is going to influence your line of work.

@vicar.

Still having problems reading my dear vicar?
Nowhere did I defend the Pentagons policies or behaviour.
They indeed have a terrible track record environmentally.
Not only CO2 but as well as depleted uranium from armour piercing projectiles and Agent Orange (Still a problem in Vietnam).
I only referred to them to point out a wide spectrum of groups take climate change serious.

Hi Vicar,
Welcome back. Finished reading the nationalreview.com and breitbart.com ?

@Geezer

On page 2 of this topic you already wrote:
“1) I do not doubt climate change. 2) I do not doubt that humans may impact climate.”

Hope you are aware of the contradiction in that: “I do not doubt” and “may impact”.

If you do not doubt climate change then why are you behaving as a classical merchant of doubt?
It always goes like: Well there is a point but………
Your previous post is a classic.
- Refer to something thousands of years ago.
- Throw in the “hiatus” (Which long since has been debunked).
- There are other sources of CO2. (And always have been)
- CO2 is only 0.04%. (Which only shows that a small alteration can have a big effect).
- Cosmic rays, earth magnetic field, plate tectonics, volcanoes and El Nino/La Nina.
This all serves to point out that well we cannot do anything about it.

Well I have no problem in ridiculing deniers when they quote:
Dailycaller.com
Nationalreview.com
Joannenova.com

But I am happy to see that in your very last post you seem to have seen your error.
This is where you quote news.berkeley.com with respect to the hiatus.
Maybe you should read more news.berkeley.com instead of the Dailycaller.com, the Nationalreview.com and Joannenova.com

@michael
“So - I'm rather skeptical about politically biased agendas and our alleged scientific bandwagons these days.”

So am I.

Trump’s policies are clearly based on politically biased agendas and not on science.
Climate change is however not a politically biased agenda. All leading scientific bodies in this world agree on it and this includes widely different bodies such as Greenpeace and the Pentagon.
See:
EPA = United States Environmental Protection Agency
www3.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/
(Now this page is “updated” and for what that means there is a referral to this text: “WASHINGTON – EPA.gov, the website for the United States Environmental Protection Agency, is undergoing changes that reflect the agency’s new direction under President Donald Trump and Administrator Scott Pruitt. “

Thus a clear indication of a politically biased agenda. The science didn’t change the politics did.).

The Pentagon
www.climate.gov/[...]
UN-IPCC
ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf
EU
ec.europa.eu/clima/change/causes/index_en.htm
www.eea.europa.eu/themes/climate

But vicar rather gets his "knowledge" from:
www.nationalreview.com
www.breitbart.com
as he indicated in an earlier discussion
www.gokunming.com/[...]

Geezer gets his “knowledge” from:
dailycaller.com/[...]
and
www.nationalreview.com/[...]
as he indicated in an earlier discussion
www.gokunming.com/[...]