Sunday, May 11, 2014 11:26:46 PM
@MalcomR The connection between man-made CO2 emissions and global warming is extremely weak at best.
As you pointed out, there are a number of more significant causes of climate change that we can't control. It`s almost certainly caused by a combination of all of them to a greater or lesser degree. One thing that`s indisputable, though, is that prior to the Industrial Revolution NONE of those fluctuations were caused by man. What makes the AGW crowd so sure that this latest fluctuation is caused by something different from all the others?
Spending ourselves into poverty won`t change the climate nor will letting liberals boss us around and take our stuff, which is the real motivation behind global warming alarmism. It will, however, result in millions of deaths, mostly in the 3rd World where food prices are already soaring and people are going hungry because of massive amounts of corn being used for bio-fuel with no net effect on CO2 output.
Sunday, May 11, 2014 6:17:24 AM
Hmmm... so, CO2 is not a greenhouse gas (it's not as potent as others for sure) and does in fact cool the earth (at least in Greenland apparently). And scientific consensus carries no more weight than religious "consensus".
So Ollie, what causes the peaks and troughs in your graph throughout history? You have details? Is it all solar irradiance? Is all of it due to volcanic particulates? What about methane seeps? Maybe some of it is chaotic subtleties in the earth`s orbit and inclination? Which one of these things is "really" causing those features?
More importantly though, are you really claiming that, as SmagBoy pointed out, we don`t have the wits to understand that, yes, the climate has changed RADICALLY in the past, but using that as an argument against AGW is an indication of complete ignorance?
Saturday, May 10, 2014 1:41:20 PM
@SmagBoy1 If we're going to make this post political (sigh), let`s at least stick to relevant facts, Ollie. At least you admit that AGW is political. It`s certainly not science.
So, an 11,000-year sample is cherry picking, but a 100-year sample isn`t? Let`s have a closer look at the data.
You want "a civil little respite from the nasty[ness]?" How about you stop calling us "deniers" equating us with Holocaust deniers? How about you stop calling for skeptics to be fired and lose their credentials? How about you stop calling us "immoral, unethical and despicable?" How about you stop calling for skeptics to be arrested and thrown in prison? And you call US nasty?
A 97% consensus carries no more weight than 97% of priests saying God exists. In both cases, you must FIRST profess your faith before joining the club.
Saturday, May 10, 2014 7:17:58 AM
You know, some of those do track.
Decreased South American oil imports should relate to people driving less which should also relate to lower collisions and lower pedestrian fatalities.
Also, there seems to be a preponderance of Samoan legal students who strangle people with bed sheets at ski lodges so they won't get married, drink milk and eat corn syrup, resulting in the legal students using their hit fees to buy pets and go to ball games...
Saturday, May 10, 2014 5:21:04 AM
If we're going to make this post political (sigh), let`s at least stick to relevant facts, Ollie. How about, a) actually showing the correlation number (graphs aren`t always the best way to demonstrate it, as you well know), and, b) more importantly, limit the analysis to the years humans have been industrially producing CO2. Say, the last 100+ years or so. By analyzing the last 11,000 years, you`ve obviously and clearly (and willfully, I`d add), biased the sample, because, *of course*, all but the last 100+ are relevant. That`s why scientists (well, 97%+ of them) are so worried. But, nice try.
Wouldn`t it be cool if we could have kept this post non-political? You know, a civil little respite from the nasty your team, my team paradigm that Jerry Falwell (also willfully) started with his jacked up "moral majority" (poor victims that they were/are)?