America : Good while it lasted

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jidoe
You might be able to explain why, but that will not make you correct. In fact, empirically, you would be wrong.

---

No. The fact that there many competing geological influences that determine overall global temperatures does not change the fact that higher CO2 concentrations put upward pressure on temperatures. All other things being constant, more CO2 leads to a warmer planet/satellite/etc. The empirical evidence for that is so overwhelming it's impossible to deny, and is also backed by sound theoretical understanding of the optical properties of the molecule.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xywalan
Ugh, the link you posted seems to contain material from junkscience.com.

---

I suspected as much when I wondered through it, but the graph from Wikipedia seems legitimate (showing the various models for determining CO2 levels), and the only thing I wanted to get from the other site was the average temperature in the past 600 million years.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
All other things being constant...

---

That.

That's exactly the difference between theory and practice. I don't deny the fact CO2 is a greenhouse gas (nor do I deny the fact that temperature seems to be rising), but in nature, NOTHING is constant, certainly not the things I wrote (and there are many more things that could cause a warming, not only that).

The fact that people choose to look mostly (if not only) at CO2 as the reason for warming is not just alerting, but mind-boggling. Things are never as simple as they look.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jidoe
I don't deny the fact CO2 is a greenhouse gas

---

There are plenty of people who do dispute that, which is precisely why I brought it up.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jidoe
The fact that people choose to look mostly (if not only) at CO2 as the reason for warming is not just alerting, but mind-boggling.

---

I'm not sure what people you're talking about, but climate scientists (who are the only people you should really be listening to) consider much more than just CO2 concentrations. Climate models are fairly thorough in their scope, including other gases (such as sulfur and NOx), solar radiation, known ecological feedback mechanisms and so on. The reason why CO2 is so heavily referenced by climate scientists when lobbying for changes to public policy is because CO2 is something on which that humans have a rather large amount of influence.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
The reason why CO2 is so heavily referenced by climate scientists when lobbying for changes to public policy is because CO2 is something on which that humans have a rather large amount of influence.

---

And also because humans, especially those in positions of power, are generally stupid. Consequently, it is far easier to get support for your campaign by saying "Carbon is bad!" than saying "Carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, dihydrogen monoxide, and five million other ides are all helping to drive a cyclic change further in one direction". You can't make a news headline out of that.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Snrrub
Climate models are fairly thorough in their scope...

---

Yes, climate models are scary.

Actual observed temperatures over the last decade are not.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rilthyn
Yes, climate models are scary.

Actual observed temperatures over the last decade are not.

---

Funny, I'm not scared by either.

Whether you think that observed temperatures are scary or not is completely uninteresting to me. My point is that CO2 has been proved to be a greenhouse gas (which nevertheless has been disputed) and that there is an established causal link between higher CO2 concentrations and higher temperatures (which nevertheless has been disputed in this very thread, by you).

A commentary on "climategate"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...nge-phil-jones

BTW, denialists like Steve McIntyre seem to be giant idiots. He babbles on and on about the "nature trick" but doesn't address the point: the tree-ring data (Briffa et al., i.e., most of the green lines in the graphs) was not matching the real measurements of temperature and it was deleted from the graph. I wonder how long does it take for that idiot to realize this issue. And how exactly that is "manipulation of the data".

New Scientist also weigh in regarding the "issue".

http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/sh...l-warming.html

Further proof that fox news is a mouth piece for anti-global warming propaganda: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/...th-volunteers/ and I love how they promote that pathetic Anthony Watts.

BTW, here's the BBC interview with Phil Jones, including some questions put forward by the skeptics.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm