The Arrogance of the Warmers

[gslack]

Well, you're now admitting that cutting back on the co2 would reduce global temperatures a full degree. That means it does warm the planet! 20 degree's within one area from min to max is purely short term that has little to do with climate.

Climate is a avg of many highs and lows that make up a + or - anomaly. The global anomaly is that on a global scale.

An anomaly is something out of a norm.

Anomaly | Define Anomaly at Dictionary.com

a·nom·a·ly

1. a deviation from the common rule, type, arrangement, or form.

2. someone or something anomalous: With his quiet nature, he was an anomaly in his exuberant family.

3. an odd, peculiar, or strange condition, situation, quality, etc.

4. an incongruity or inconsistency.

5. Astronomy . a quantity measured in degrees, defining the position of an orbiting body with respect to the point at which it is nearest to or farthest from its primary.

6. Meteorology . the amount of deviation of a meteorological quantity from the accepted normal value of that quantity.

7. Grammar . irregularity.

A Series of highs and lows make a deviation. An average would be somewhere in the middle of the deviations.

An anomaly is something out of the ordinary, as in anomalous readings and so on. Matt you really shouldn't laugh at someone else when you are this wrong about what you are making fun of..

I pointed out before why they (the IPCC, NOAA, etc.) continually post charts for anomalies and try and pass them off as something relevant to over all climate. Its a scam and advanced hucksterism. Anomalies charts are simply that, anomalous readings that defy the norm or average for a given time and place. The NOAA particularly loves to post these charts, and they do so to keep the actual warming or cooling vague and frighten people into a false assumption. Also its hard to prove assumptions made from anomalies wrong or right for that matter. They do not represent an average either long or short term but rather odd readings that do not follow an expected course or outcome.

Asshole that is what I said. A anonamly is outside the norm +-. Don't you fucking know how to fucking read a post? Dumb fucker! Believe me, I know what a fucking anomaly is as I been watching them for 15 years of my life along with every tropical cyclone and tornadoe event...I think I'm going back to the weather boards as this place sucks horses dick.

Don't call me asshole shithead, you fucked up not me...

your words, as they were written here..

"Climate is a avg of many highs and lows that make up a + or - anomaly. The global anomaly is that on a global scale."

An anomaly is not an average its the opposite of average. You can't say a series of highs and lows make up a + or - anomaly when an anomaly is the odd man out in an average. Its not logical nor is it accurate by any measure.

If you meant to say something else thats one thing but like it was written is asinine and nonsensical gibberish. The definitions are correct, check em I gave you the link and I think I cited em pretty well.

You went from so-called passive temp monitoring to full blown warmer lately and you have the nerve to call me asshole? F U, you screwed up and either likened anomalies to average deviance from a norm, or worded it badly. It read like you were associating anomaly to deviance and thats what I responded to, especially after the way you were laughing.

 

[westwall]

Ah Fritzy, unable to present any evidence for your position, simply resorting to flap yap.

All the Scientific Societies, all the National Academies of Science, and all the major Universities have policy statements that state that AGW is real and a danger to our society.

But, of course, Knownothings like Fritzy have drugged out radio jocks, with barely a high school education, and undegreed ex-TV weathermen bloggers to depend on for their science.

No, just exposing you for the arrogant law breaking elitist pricks you are

I knew someone else would figure it out.

Well, you know....it was pretty obvious I guess that's why the "super duper smart" folks couldn't figure it out.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If it's above or below the avg for a that day(week, month, year) of the year it is a anomaly.

Avg 56f, but we have 59f for that day that's 3f above normal for the anomaly. Avg out this over a period of time like within a month like March for my area would be around 46f for the monthly means, but this year we had 50f or 4f above(once again is the anomaly).

Ask yourself what is the accepted normal? Well the avg of highs over the temperature record(Since 1941 for PDX) for that time of the year. So it avg's out to be 56f...Now ask you self what is a deviation from that, well it surely isn't the opposite of such, but a difference of that, which we had 59f. That is how we get 3f for the anomaly.

I have spent my life doing this crap and I think I know a thing about it. I've stayed up nights glued to meteorological events since 8 years old. I've busted my ass in making my own forecast that beat the hell out of the local pro's. Don't fucking tell me I don't know what a anomaly is.

I'm totally against leftist policies and don't really care outside of the science debate. You can be pro or anti, but it is not settled one way or the other.

 

[gslack]

If it's above or below the avg for a that day(week, month, year) of the year it is a anomaly.

Avg 56f, but we have 59f for that day that's 3f above normal for the anomaly. Avg out this over a period of time like within a month like March for my area would be around 46f for the monthly means, but this year we had 50f or 4f above(once again is the anomaly).

Ask yourself what is the accepted normal? Well the avg of highs over the temperature record(Since 1941 for PDX) for that time of the year. So it avg's out to be 56f...Now ask you self what is a deviation from that, well it surely isn't the opposite of such, but a difference of that, which we had 59f. That is how we get 3f for the anomaly.

I have spent my life doing this crap and I think I know a thing about it. I've stayed up nights glued to meteorological events since 8 years old. I've busted my ass in making my own forecast that beat the hell out of the local pro's. Don't fucking tell me I don't know what a anomaly is.

I'm totally against leftist policies and don't really care outside of the science debate. You can be pro or anti, but it is not settled one way or the other.

Matt I was reacting to what you wrote not what you felt or thought or meant to say. I am not a mind reader and the way you wrote it was giving the impression you had mixed anomalies with average deviance. Read it yourself and tell me its not different than what you are saying now...

Saying a series of highs and lows makes a + or - anomaly is not the same thing. An anomaly is outside an expected norm, and odd man out. taking a series of highs and lows you can get an average. anything outside that average would be an anomaly if it were not within the allowable natural deviance.

I still contend the manner they use anomaly charts is hucksterism, and the way they come to those anomalies is questionable at best. By the measure they use any deviance is an anomaly and thats misleading on a long term scale like overall climate. They post a chart of anomalies for a given season which is just colored dots on a map and make a claim the temps rose by such amount with small print stating anomalies for such season. When I see these i think WTH? Odd temps in an average are simply that be they highs or lows they are odd and not within the average. What does that mean? Nothing in terms of a season or even a year or decade in regards to overall climate.

Its BS. its just more nonsense to distract people.. Next time word it better or explain it more in depth and People like myself won't be misled or come to the wrong conclusion. And do me a favor and mind the asshole, you are one of the few on here that shows some sense that I don't necessarily agree with. I respect you matt, i think you are smarter than this warmist BS but thats your decision. At least you aren't a fraud or a sellout like a few others. Lets try and keep civil with one another.

 

[wirebender]

You'll have to link or otherwise direct me to all the data you're referring to.

-Googled 'cooling trend' and the only thing that came up climate change-related was Alex Jones' website.

Anyone else notice the distinct correlation to the DOW??

In the warmists minds correlation = causation so it must be the Dow that warms and cools the earth.

 

[code1211]

It's not a 'maybe,' it's a near-certainty. That's what you guys don't get, you think there's some sort of debate going on within the scientific community, and there really isn't. There's about as much debate as there is over the authenticity of the moon landing.

But let's say it was 'just a maybe.' Say a 50% chance.

If the rest of the world is wrong, we risk wasting money to try to fix a problem that isn't really there (not sure where you get the $76 trillion number). Of course that money isn't really 'wasted,' it's just furloughed and re-circulated throughout the world economy, but nonetheless spent in a way less efficient then you prefer.

If however American Republicans are wrong, what could we be facing then? Desertification, food shortages, displacement, inevitable wars that go along with that; disruption to oceanic eco-systems, potentially rising ocean levels, loss of land mass, displacement and the inevitable wars that go along with that...

American Republicans, the scientists of CERN, those who collect data for NOAA, HADcrut, RSS and UAH and just about anyone else who demands to see actual proof and not just a re-run of the "The Blob".

Not the remake. The one with Steve McQueen.

If the trend over the last 8 years is cooling, what does this tell us about CO2? Is it out of work, too? How in the world can we depend on anything if CO2 has stopped working?

You'll have to link or otherwise direct me to all the data you're referring to.

-Googled 'cooling trend' and the only thing that came up climate change-related was Alex Jones' website.

-Looked up some of your acronyms and as yet found nothing which indicates any of them are climate change denial advocates. In fact it appears NOAA is not even climate related, and not sure what you're referring to with UAH.

I'll always look at anything you've got to offer. But so far nobody's offered anything except "U R A STOOOPID LIBTURD ITS A CONSPIRACY WWWOOOWOOOWOOO!"

This link was posted earlier in this thread. It shows graphs from HADCrut, RSS, UAH and NOAA that all reveal cooling between 2002 and 2010.

NOAA is not climate related?

My question: If CO2 is the driver of warming and if the source of increased CO2 is mankind and if the reduction of CO2 from anthropogenic sources is the only way to reduce rising global temperaures, why are temperatures dropping in the face of increased CO2 from anthropogenic sources?

Another question: If the temperature drops while CO2 rises, may we assume that CO2 is overpowered by other forcing agents and, if this is true, why the hysteria over CO2?

2011 August 09 « Reasonable Doubt on Climate Change

NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Organizations

 

[code1211]

If it's above or below the avg for a that day(week, month, year) of the year it is a anomaly.

Avg 56f, but we have 59f for that day that's 3f above normal for the anomaly. Avg out this over a period of time like within a month like March for my area would be around 46f for the monthly means, but this year we had 50f or 4f above(once again is the anomaly).

Ask yourself what is the accepted normal? Well the avg of highs over the temperature record(Since 1941 for PDX) for that time of the year. So it avg's out to be 56f...Now ask you self what is a deviation from that, well it surely isn't the opposite of such, but a difference of that, which we had 59f. That is how we get 3f for the anomaly.

I have spent my life doing this crap and I think I know a thing about it. I've stayed up nights glued to meteorological events since 8 years old. I've busted my ass in making my own forecast that beat the hell out of the local pro's. Don't fucking tell me I don't know what a anomaly is.

I'm totally against leftist policies and don't really care outside of the science debate. You can be pro or anti, but it is not settled one way or the other.

I am in exact agreement on that.

I have heard that the temperature for a day is figured as the average between the recorded high and the recorded low for any given day. Is that true?

As a devil's advocate, it seems that on some days, the temperatures may go closer to the highs all day and on others, the temperatures may go closer to the lows all day. If the average of the two is the methodology, that's fine, but it does invite still another variable into the debate.

You, obviously, are closer to this than I. I have doubts and am a rank amateur. It's nice to know that someone with a background also has doubts.

 

[ScienceRocks]

If it's above or below the avg for a that day(week, month, year) of the year it is a anomaly.

Avg 56f, but we have 59f for that day that's 3f above normal for the anomaly. Avg out this over a period of time like within a month like March for my area would be around 46f for the monthly means, but this year we had 50f or 4f above(once again is the anomaly).

Ask yourself what is the accepted normal? Well the avg of highs over the temperature record(Since 1941 for PDX) for that time of the year. So it avg's out to be 56f...Now ask you self what is a deviation from that, well it surely isn't the opposite of such, but a difference of that, which we had 59f. That is how we get 3f for the anomaly.

I have spent my life doing this crap and I think I know a thing about it. I've stayed up nights glued to meteorological events since 8 years old. I've busted my ass in making my own forecast that beat the hell out of the local pro's. Don't fucking tell me I don't know what a anomaly is.

I'm totally against leftist policies and don't really care outside of the science debate. You can be pro or anti, but it is not settled one way or the other.

I am in exact agreement on that.

I have heard that the temperature for a day is figured as the average between the recorded high and the recorded low for any given day. Is that true?

As a devil's advocate, it seems that on some days, the temperatures may go closer to the highs all day and on others, the temperatures may go closer to the lows all day. If the average of the two is the methodology, that's fine, but it does invite still another variable into the debate.

You, obviously, are closer to this than I. I have doubts and am a rank amateur. It's nice to know that someone with a background also has doubts.

Yes it is true---

TEMPERATURE (F)
YESTERDAY
MAXIMUM 68 156 PM 95 2003 72 -4 84
MINIMUM 52 1156 PM 37 1961 50 2 63
1945
AVERAGE 60 61 -1 74


When you avg the observed between the two(highs and lows) is 60f, but the avg is 61f over the temperature record for this date, so we're -1f below the avg(anomaly).

This is for PDX.


[/quote]
As a devil's advocate, it seems that on some days, the temperatures may go closer to the highs all day and on others, the temperatures may go closer to the lows all day. If the average of the two is the methodology, that's fine, but it does invite still another variable into the debate.

Well, that isn't so. It may seem so at times as cloudy days(24 hour periods) have a cooler high as less solar energy makes it to the surface to warm them up, while the clouds act as a cap on long wave radiation escaping to space at night, which keeps them warm.

So a day lets say in Late nov around my area could have rain all day long and have a high of 48f with low 41f, but the night day could be a dry and sunny one of 45f for high and 32f for low. What you have here is little to no clouds at night and for my area a ridge often means a more northerly flow during the day that counters the extra solar energy making it into the system.

It has to do a lot with what air mass is over your area and what direction the "flow" from the surface to 500 mbs is. A 26c, 850 temperature during July is going to bring hot weather here in the western Valley of Oregon; no matter how much the sky is covered. A few years ago it did this and I got into the upper 90's, but this could of got close to 105-107 range---> if it had complete sun, but the night was in the upper 70's! As it was humid with a high dew point and little energy radiated to space.

Another such case is on days that have southern "winds" with high pressure centered south of the area with a low pressure centered somewhere to the north of the area.(winds move from high pressure to low pressure) These days can be within the upper 50's or lower 60's in January...With warm lows during the night if that remains so, but I've seen as the front moved through the area it go from 55-56f to around 38f within the afternoons. On the norm, but outside it when a blue norther or arctic front moves into the area you can go from the mid 40's to the low 20's in a matter of 4-6 hours.

There is a lot of things that control temperature. So a avg is a avg of temperature within the record period for the date. 1988 56, 1989 54, 1990 45, 1991 38, 1992 56, 1993 65, on and on then we avg that to get the avg. The anomaly for the highs and lows is just what ever it falls outside of that. If you do it the way the nws does it with avging out the highs and lows then you do the same thing, but with the highs and lows. 2008, 55/45, 2009 56/44, 2010 58/41, 2011 48/39, avg 55/43 in the 1941-2011 for highs and lows, so 2008 had 0f for highs/+2f for lows, so anomaly is +2.

So it's the avg of both when dealing with avging out the highs and lows.. .If you're just looking for avg highs alone...Then it's the avg of highs throughout the record period(1941-2011 for pdx) and you compare the high for the day to it. So avg of 55 and you observe 54, so you have -1f outside the avg for a anomaly of -1f.

To end it here is some idea of day to day temperature
Avg during this period 45/38 or 41.5f for the overall avg, so January 8th 54/43 or 48.5f or anomaly of 7f, January 9th 45/39 or 42f or +.5f for anomaly, January 10th 41/29 or 35f, which is -6.5f below the daily avg.

But if for lows
January 9th avg(1941-2011) is 38f, so today the 9th has 42f or +4 for the anomaly for the low(minimum).

 

[code1211]

If it's above or below the avg for a that day(week, month, year) of the year it is a anomaly.

Avg 56f, but we have 59f for that day that's 3f above normal for the anomaly. Avg out this over a period of time like within a month like March for my area would be around 46f for the monthly means, but this year we had 50f or 4f above(once again is the anomaly).

Ask yourself what is the accepted normal? Well the avg of highs over the temperature record(Since 1941 for PDX) for that time of the year. So it avg's out to be 56f...Now ask you self what is a deviation from that, well it surely isn't the opposite of such, but a difference of that, which we had 59f. That is how we get 3f for the anomaly.

I have spent my life doing this crap and I think I know a thing about it. I've stayed up nights glued to meteorological events since 8 years old. I've busted my ass in making my own forecast that beat the hell out of the local pro's. Don't fucking tell me I don't know what a anomaly is.

I'm totally against leftist policies and don't really care outside of the science debate. You can be pro or anti, but it is not settled one way or the other.

I am in exact agreement on that.

I have heard that the temperature for a day is figured as the average between the recorded high and the recorded low for any given day. Is that true?

As a devil's advocate, it seems that on some days, the temperatures may go closer to the highs all day and on others, the temperatures may go closer to the lows all day. If the average of the two is the methodology, that's fine, but it does invite still another variable into the debate.

You, obviously, are closer to this than I. I have doubts and am a rank amateur. It's nice to know that someone with a background also has doubts.

Yes it is true---

TEMPERATURE (F)
YESTERDAY
MAXIMUM 68 156 PM 95 2003 72 -4 84
MINIMUM 52 1156 PM 37 1961 50 2 63
1945
AVERAGE 60 61 -1 74


When you avg the observed between the two(highs and lows) is 60f, but the avg is 61f over the temperature record for this date, so we're -1f below the avg(anomaly).

This is for PDX.

As a devil's advocate, it seems that on some days, the temperatures may go closer to the highs all day and on others, the temperatures may go closer to the lows all day. If the average of the two is the methodology, that's fine, but it does invite still another variable into the debate.

Well, that isn't so. It may seem so at times as cloudy days(24 hour periods) have a cooler high as less solar energy makes it to the surface to warm them up, while the clouds act as a cap on long wave radiation escaping to space at night, which keeps them warm.

So a day lets say in Late nov around my area could have rain all day long and have a high of 48f with low 41f, but the night day could be a dry and sunny one of 45f for high and 32f for low. What you have here is little to no clouds at night and for my area a ridge often means a more northerly flow during the day that counters the extra solar energy making it into the system.

It has to do a lot with what air mass is over your area and what direction the "flow" from the surface to 500 mbs is. A 26c, 850 temperature during July is going to bring hot weather here in the western Valley of Oregon; no matter how much the sky is covered. A few years ago it did this and I got into the upper 90's, but this could of got close to 105-107 range---> if it had complete sun, but the night was in the upper 70's! As it was humid with a high dew point and little energy radiated to space.

Another such case is on days that have southern "winds" with high pressure centered south of the area with a low pressure centered somewhere to the north of the area.(winds move from high pressure to low pressure) These days can be within the upper 50's or lower 60's in January...With warm lows during the night if that remains so, but I've seen as the front moved through the area it go from 55-56f to around 38f within the afternoons. On the norm, but outside it when a blue norther or arctic front moves into the area you can go from the mid 40's to the low 20's in a matter of 4-6 hours.

There is a lot of things that control temperature. So a avg is a avg of temperature within the record period for the date. 1988 56, 1989 54, 1990 45, 1991 38, 1992 56, 1993 65, on and on then we avg that to get the avg. The anomaly for the highs and lows is just what ever it falls outside of that. If you do it the way the nws does it with avging out the highs and lows then you do the same thing, but with the highs and lows. 2008, 55/45, 2009 56/44, 2010 58/41, 2011 48/39, avg 55/43 in the 1941-2011 for highs and lows, so 2008 had 0f for highs/+2f for lows, so anomaly is +2.

So it's the avg of both when dealing with avging out the highs and lows.. .If you're just looking for avg highs alone...Then it's the avg of highs throughout the record period(1941-2011 for pdx) and you compare the high for the day to it. So avg of 55 and you observe 54, so you have -1f outside the avg for a anomaly of -1f.

To end it here is some idea of day to day temperature
Avg during this period 45/38 or 41.5f for the overall avg, so January 8th 54/43 or 48.5f or anomaly of 7f, January 9th 45/39 or 42f or +.5f for anomaly, January 10th 41/29 or 35f, which is -6.5f below the daily avg.

But if for lows
January 9th avg(1941-2011) is 38f, so today the 9th has 42f or +4 for the anomaly for the low(minimum).

Thank you.

Do you do this stuff as a part of your profession or are you a very dedicated hobbyist?

 

[Iridescence]

After much consideration and thought... I really dislike this threads title.... It isn't at all arogance that comes through warmers perception it is frustration.

 

[konradv]

After much consideration and thought... I really dislike this threads title.... It isn't at all arogance that comes through warmers perception it is frustration.

What can you expect but frustration, when the logic is so simple? If a substance causes the earth to be warmer than if it weren't there, wouldn't more of it lead to more warmth, all other things being equal? Of course all other things aren't equal, but change over time. That fact doesn't disprove AGW, however, just makes it harder to prove, though the logic remains the same and is ironclad, IMO.

 

[code1211]

After much consideration and thought... I really dislike this threads title.... It isn't at all arogance that comes through warmers perception it is frustration.

What can you expect but frustration, when the logic is so simple? If a substance causes the earth to be warmer than if it weren't there, wouldn't more of it lead to more warmth, all other things being equal? Of course all other things aren't equal, but change over time. That fact doesn't disprove AGW, however, just makes it harder to prove, though the logic remains the same and is ironclad, IMO.

The thing about logic is that it depends on knowing enough to figure something out. Logic told us that the Earth was flat, that the Sun revolved around the Earth and that CO2 caused global warming.

Logic proved that God exists if you're Thomas Aquinas and that He does not if you're David Hume.

Logic is a wonderful tool and should be used wisely.

Ironclad logic really depends on one's point of view, biases and pardigms.

 

[wirebender]

What can you expect but frustration, when the logic is so simple? If a substance causes the earth to be warmer than if it weren't there, wouldn't more of it lead to more warmth, all other things being equal? Of course all other things aren't equal, but change over time. That fact doesn't disprove AGW, however, just makes it harder to prove, though the logic remains the same and is ironclad, IMO.

Can you prove that CO2 causes the earth to be warmer? If you can, it would be a first.

 

[ScienceRocks]

What can you expect but frustration, when the logic is so simple? If a substance causes the earth to be warmer than if it weren't there, wouldn't more of it lead to more warmth, all other things being equal? Of course all other things aren't equal, but change over time. That fact doesn't disprove AGW, however, just makes it harder to prove, though the logic remains the same and is ironclad, IMO.

Can you prove that CO2 causes the earth to be warmer? If you can, it would be a first.

Can you prove that the slow decrease in tsi since 1950 caused the warming of the earth since then?

Thanks

 

[westwall]

What can you expect but frustration, when the logic is so simple? If a substance causes the earth to be warmer than if it weren't there, wouldn't more of it lead to more warmth, all other things being equal? Of course all other things aren't equal, but change over time. That fact doesn't disprove AGW, however, just makes it harder to prove, though the logic remains the same and is ironclad, IMO.

Can you prove that CO2 causes the earth to be warmer? If you can, it would be a first.

Can you prove that the slow decrease in tsi since 1950 caused the warming of the earth since then?

Thanks

No. We can't, but you don't see us saying "the logic is incontrovertible, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron" either. Do you.

 

[Old Rocks]

I will again be looking for you to present your case to the upcoming AGU Conferance. I assume you have presented your paper to the committee already. After all, one of your standing, a member of the AGU and Fellow of the Royal Society should be able to set the record straight. You will make a presentation, correct, Westwall?

 

[gslack]

I will again be looking for you to present your case to the upcoming AGU Conferance. I assume you have presented your paper to the committee already. After all, one of your standing, a member of the AGU and Fellow of the Royal Society should be able to set the record straight. You will make a presentation, correct, Westwall?

Sure ya will socks, you will be monitoring the eco-blogs with trepidation..

 

[Old Rocks]

A23A

C24A

Real science from real scientists, not that you are capable of comprehending such, G-string.

 

[konradv]

After much consideration and thought... I really dislike this threads title.... It isn't at all arogance that comes through warmers perception it is frustration.

What can you expect but frustration, when the logic is so simple? If a substance causes the earth to be warmer than if it weren't there, wouldn't more of it lead to more warmth, all other things being equal? Of course all other things aren't equal, but change over time. That fact doesn't disprove AGW, however, just makes it harder to prove, though the logic remains the same and is ironclad, IMO.

The thing about logic is that it depends on knowing enough to figure something out. Logic told us that the Earth was flat, that the Sun revolved around the Earth and that CO2 caused global warming.

Logic proved that God exists if you're Thomas Aquinas and that He does not if you're David Hume.

Logic is a wonderful tool and should be used wisely.

Ironclad logic really depends on one's point of view, biases and pardigms.

It's not good enough to just say that sometimes logic can be flawed. That's really a nothing statement. To have it mean anything, you have to point out the flaw. Simply dismissing it for the reasons you cited is a logical flaw in itself, since one instance has nothing to do with the other, except as an opportuniy for "guilt by association".

Association fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[wirebender]

Can you prove that the slow decrease in tsi since 1950 caused the warming of the earth since then?

Thanks

Nope. But then I never claimed that it was. My claims all fall into the category of what isn't causing warming and I have the laws of physics to back me up. I don't claim to be smart enough to know what thing, or random combination, or cyclical combination of things trigger and cause the earth's cycles to begin or end.

I am smart enough, however to weigh the claimed causes against the laws of physics and know whether I am being played for a fool or not.

Anyone claiming that a rise in a trace atmospheric gas can drive the climate of the entire planet is playing people for fools.

Anyone who buys the claim has been played.