Climate change study had 'significant error': experts

[BrianH]

Rising food prices is caused by the price of oil... different subject.

They still have not proven AGW....simple as that. Until they do, it's a theory....only that.

LOL, you need to learn something about science before commenting. There is NO SUCH THING as being "only a theory". Theories are well-reasoned treatises based on years of data. You can't do much better than that. It won't be discarded until YOU PROVE it's false. Until then it's the gold standard for whatever topic is in question. You seem to be thinking of "hypothesis", a much less stringent concept requiring research to get it to the level of "Theory".

You are right, of course. This is so far a hypothesis. AGW does not yet rise to the level of a theory. There has recently been warming. Prior to that there was cooling and prior to that warming. The cooling period of the Little ice Age went on for about 250 to 400 years.

Our current warming has continued for about 230 years if we are to buy into the AGW story line.

The Medieval Warm period last for centuries also. During that warm period, things for humanity were pretty good. During the Little Ice Age, not so much.

We know that Glaciers are receeding to levels prevelant in a time about 5000 years ago. This means we are warming to that level: a level persistant between 8000 and 3000 BC.

Set in a historical perspective, the panic diminishes and we see a simple ebb and flow of climate change.

Superimposing the musings of those who seek funding or who covet the wealth of one nation for another does not add as much light as it adds heat to the debate. Pun intended.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[konradv]

Rising food prices is caused by the price of oil... different subject.

They still have not proven AGW....simple as that. Until they do, it's a theory....only that.

LOL, you need to learn something about science before commenting. There is NO SUCH THING as being "only a theory". Theories are well-reasoned treatises based on years of data. You can't do much better than that. It won't be discarded until YOU PROVE it's false. Until then it's the gold standard for whatever topic is in question. You seem to be thinking of "hypothesis", a much less stringent concept requiring research to get it to the level of "Theory".

You are right, of course. This is so far a hypothesis. AGW does not yet rise to the level of a theory. There has recently been warming. Prior to that there was cooling and prior to that warming. The cooling period of the Little ice Age went on for about 250 to 400 years.

Our current warming has continued for about 230 years if we are to buy into the AGW story line.

The Medieval Warm period last for centuries also. During that warm period, things for humanity were pretty good. During the Little Ice Age, not so much.

We know that Glaciers are receeding to levels prevelant in a time about 5000 years ago. This means we are warming to that level: a level persistant between 8000 and 3000 BC.

Set in a historical perspective, the panic diminishes and we see a simple ebb and flow of climate change.

Superimposing the musings of those who seek funding or who covet the wealth of one nation for another does not add as much light as it adds heat to the debate. Pun intended.

Now you're just making things up. AGW is far beyond the hypothesis stage. You can't make something so, just by saying it. As for your analysis, it fails a basic test of logic to be considered proof of anything. Just because something had a particular cause or time course in the past, doesn't prove that this time there isn't a different cause and time course, particularly given the fact that humans emit more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year!

 

[BrianH]

LOL, you need to learn something about science before commenting. There is NO SUCH THING as being "only a theory". Theories are well-reasoned treatises based on years of data. You can't do much better than that. It won't be discarded until YOU PROVE it's false. Until then it's the gold standard for whatever topic is in question. You seem to be thinking of "hypothesis", a much less stringent concept requiring research to get it to the level of "Theory".

You are right, of course. This is so far a hypothesis. AGW does not yet rise to the level of a theory. There has recently been warming. Prior to that there was cooling and prior to that warming. The cooling period of the Little ice Age went on for about 250 to 400 years.

Our current warming has continued for about 230 years if we are to buy into the AGW story line.

The Medieval Warm period last for centuries also. During that warm period, things for humanity were pretty good. During the Little Ice Age, not so much.

We know that Glaciers are receeding to levels prevelant in a time about 5000 years ago. This means we are warming to that level: a level persistant between 8000 and 3000 BC.

Set in a historical perspective, the panic diminishes and we see a simple ebb and flow of climate change.

Superimposing the musings of those who seek funding or who covet the wealth of one nation for another does not add as much light as it adds heat to the debate. Pun intended.

Now you're just making things up. AGW is far beyond the hypothesis stage. You can't make something so, just by saying it. As for your analysis, it fails a basic test of logic to be considered proof of anything. Just because something had a particular cause or time course in the past, doesn't prove that this time there isn't a different cause and time course, particularly given the fact that humans emit more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year!

What he's saying, is that because these events have happened numerous times before, you can't truthfully find a cause now. A "hypothesis" for previous warming and cooling trends before humans existed are volcanoes, sun radiation fluxuations, the earth's rotation and tilt, etc.... But these are just hypotheses, they're not proven fact. Scientists can hypothesize that 250,000,000 years ago there was possible elevated volcanic activity, causing the earth to warm, but they don't know, they weren't there. So, not knowing what caused it then, how can we assume that we're causing it now? This still doesn't answer the question as to why the other planets in our solar system are warming as well.

 

[konradv]

Rising food prices is caused by the price of oil... different subject.

They still have not proven AGW....simple as that. Until they do, it's a theory....only that.

LOL, you need to learn something about science before commenting. There is NO SUCH THING as being "only a theory". Theories are well-reasoned treatises based on years of data. You can't do much better than that. It won't be discarded until YOU PROVE it's false. Until then it's the gold standard for whatever topic is in question. You seem to be thinking of "hypothesis", a much less stringent concept requiring research to get it to the level of "Theory".

There's a reason it's called a theory and not fact...can YOU prove it??? I have yet to see "scientists" prove it. They "think" based on their "research" that humans are causing it... I'm not saying it should be discarded numnuts. I'm saying that I'm not going to start building my survival bunker until it can be proven without a doubt. If you were a climate scientist, what would you do to stay in business??

You have no idea what the reason is for calling it a theory. It's based on facts. Like the fact that some gases have the ability to trap infra-red radiation. The fact that those gases have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. If that trend continues, how can you expect anything but warming? Seems to me that YOU have to prove that there's something going on that would prevent this from continuing to its logical conclusion, i.e. more gases, more heat.

 

[BrianH]

LOL, you need to learn something about science before commenting. There is NO SUCH THING as being "only a theory". Theories are well-reasoned treatises based on years of data. You can't do much better than that. It won't be discarded until YOU PROVE it's false. Until then it's the gold standard for whatever topic is in question. You seem to be thinking of "hypothesis", a much less stringent concept requiring research to get it to the level of "Theory".

There's a reason it's called a theory and not fact...can YOU prove it??? I have yet to see "scientists" prove it. They "think" based on their "research" that humans are causing it... I'm not saying it should be discarded numnuts. I'm saying that I'm not going to start building my survival bunker until it can be proven without a doubt. If you were a climate scientist, what would you do to stay in business??

You have no idea what the reason is for calling it a theory. It's based on facts. Like the fact that some gases have the ability to trap infra-red radiation. The fact that those gases have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. If that trend continues, how can you expect anything but warming? Seems to me that YOU have to prove that there's something going on that would prevent this from continuing to its logical conclusion, i.e. more gases, more heat.

You still failed to address why the other PLANETS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM are warming as well.... Gases in the atmosphere are increasing? That may be true, but gases in the atmosphere increased to end the Ice Age....

 

[konradv]

There's a reason it's called a theory and not fact...can YOU prove it??? I have yet to see "scientists" prove it. They "think" based on their "research" that humans are causing it... I'm not saying it should be discarded numnuts. I'm saying that I'm not going to start building my survival bunker until it can be proven without a doubt. If you were a climate scientist, what would you do to stay in business??

You have no idea what the reason is for calling it a theory. It's based on facts. Like the fact that some gases have the ability to trap infra-red radiation. The fact that those gases have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. If that trend continues, how can you expect anything but warming? Seems to me that YOU have to prove that there's something going on that would prevent this from continuing to its logical conclusion, i.e. more gases, more heat.

You still failed to address why the other PLANETS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM are warming as well.... Gases in the atmosphere are increasing? That may be true, but gases in the atmosphere increased to end the Ice Age....

I didn't fail in anything. You're just trying to distract from the issue by citing irrelevancies. Answer the question. Why should we expect anything but warming, considering the facts I presented?

Your comment on other planets does not tell me which planets you mean and does not consider the obvious, that there are other conditions, like orbit, which may be influencing things. That happens on earth also, which is why scientists often need "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the contribution of man. You say yourself that gases "ended the Ice Age". Without saying whether that's true or not, why wouldn't gases emitted by man do THE VERY SAME THING?

 

[BrianH]

You have no idea what the reason is for calling it a theory. It's based on facts. Like the fact that some gases have the ability to trap infra-red radiation. The fact that those gases have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. If that trend continues, how can you expect anything but warming? Seems to me that YOU have to prove that there's something going on that would prevent this from continuing to its logical conclusion, i.e. more gases, more heat.

You still failed to address why the other PLANETS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM are warming as well.... Gases in the atmosphere are increasing? That may be true, but gases in the atmosphere increased to end the Ice Age....

I didn't fail in anything. You're just trying to distract from the issue by citing irrelevancies. Answer the question. Why should we expect anything but warming, considering the facts I presented?

Your comment on other planets does not tell me which planets you mean and does not consider the obvious, that there are other conditions, like orbit, which may be influencing things. That happens on earth also, which is why scientists often need "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the contribution of man. You say yourself that gases "ended the Ice Age". Without saying whether that's true or not, why wouldn't gases emitted by man do THE VERY SAME THING?

Christ all mighty your dense. I'm saying that we have no frickin clue what caused it to freeze over, and what caused it to warm. People were not there to experience and/or know why and what caused the earth to WARM. Considering that the earth has warmed and cooled numerous times without human intervention, why can we ASSUME that humans are causing it now??? I'm not saying that it's not possible that humans are contributing to it in some way, I'm saying that it hasn't been proven that humans are causing or contributing significantly to it.

 

[mdn2000]

The impossibiltiy of man to predict what the climate of earth will be tomorrow. Its a foolish way to spend tax dollars.

Billions of dollars spent on research by our government.

Billions being stolen through laws across the United States.

Global Warming and Government is the biggest rip off in history.

Because of this debate the Rules, Regulations, and Laws have already been passed and implemented, the world is suffering the consequenses. The people are suffering.

Food shortages because we are diverting corn from the world market into Ethanol based on laws Congress has passed, incidently these are Democrats and Republicans.

Democrats and Republicans in which many own CORN FARMS

Because of the United States of America's laws passed by Congress Africa has less corn to buy resulting in the riots of the last week.

Global Warming, the solution is worst than if all the predictions of Global Warming is proven true.

 

[Old Rocks]

You are right, of course. This is so far a hypothesis. AGW does not yet rise to the level of a theory. There has recently been warming. Prior to that there was cooling and prior to that warming. The cooling period of the Little ice Age went on for about 250 to 400 years.

Our current warming has continued for about 230 years if we are to buy into the AGW story line.

The Medieval Warm period last for centuries also. During that warm period, things for humanity were pretty good. During the Little Ice Age, not so much.

We know that Glaciers are receeding to levels prevelant in a time about 5000 years ago. This means we are warming to that level: a level persistant between 8000 and 3000 BC.

Set in a historical perspective, the panic diminishes and we see a simple ebb and flow of climate change.

Superimposing the musings of those who seek funding or who covet the wealth of one nation for another does not add as much light as it adds heat to the debate. Pun intended.

Now you're just making things up. AGW is far beyond the hypothesis stage. You can't make something so, just by saying it. As for your analysis, it fails a basic test of logic to be considered proof of anything. Just because something had a particular cause or time course in the past, doesn't prove that this time there isn't a different cause and time course, particularly given the fact that humans emit more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year!

What he's saying, is that because these events have happened numerous times before, you can't truthfully find a cause now. A "hypothesis" for previous warming and cooling trends before humans existed are volcanoes, sun radiation fluxuations, the earth's rotation and tilt, etc.... But these are just hypotheses, they're not proven fact. Scientists can hypothesize that 250,000,000 years ago there was possible elevated volcanic activity, causing the earth to warm, but they don't know, they weren't there. So, not knowing what caused it then, how can we assume that we're causing it now? This still doesn't answer the question as to why the other planets in our solar system are warming as well.

Silly ass. All the other planets in our solar system are not warming up. A flat out and easily provable lie. Not only that, both solar activity and TSI have decreased in the last ten years.

 

[mdn2000]

CO2, we need more CO2, it makes things grow, its food for plants, the more CO2 the more food for the world.

Plants grow a lot more with CO2, thousands of experiments proves this as fact, not theory. So more CO2 means more plants, more plants means more CO2 will be consumed. Even Kelp needs CO2, seems like the only thing CO2 is not used for is keeping things warm.

Is there a connection and is it maybe the opposite of what billions of tax dollars in research has continuely failed to prove.

 

[Old Rocks]

You still failed to address why the other PLANETS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM are warming as well.... Gases in the atmosphere are increasing? That may be true, but gases in the atmosphere increased to end the Ice Age....

I didn't fail in anything. You're just trying to distract from the issue by citing irrelevancies. Answer the question. Why should we expect anything but warming, considering the facts I presented?

Your comment on other planets does not tell me which planets you mean and does not consider the obvious, that there are other conditions, like orbit, which may be influencing things. That happens on earth also, which is why scientists often need "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the contribution of man. You say yourself that gases "ended the Ice Age". Without saying whether that's true or not, why wouldn't gases emitted by man do THE VERY SAME THING?

Christ all mighty your dense. I'm saying that we have no frickin clue what caused it to freeze over, and what caused it to warm. People were not there to experience and/or know why and what caused the earth to WARM. Considering that the earth has warmed and cooled numerous times without human intervention, why can we ASSUME that humans are causing it now??? I'm not saying that it's not possible that humans are contributing to it in some way, I'm saying that it hasn't been proven that humans are causing or contributing significantly to it.

Now Brian, because you are truly ignorant concerning the science of paleo-climatology does not mean that everyone is.

Paleoclimatology : Feature Articles

 

[Old Rocks]

CO2, we need more CO2, it makes things grow, its food for plants, the more CO2 the more food for the world.

Plants grow a lot more with CO2, thousands of experiments proves this as fact, not theory. So more CO2 means more plants, more plants means more CO2 will be consumed. Even Kelp needs CO2, seems like the only thing CO2 is not used for is keeping things warm.

Is there a connection and is it maybe the opposite of what billions of tax dollars in research has continuely failed to prove.

Sheesh, willfull ignorance and stupidity, cubed.

 

[mdn2000]

Now you're just making things up. AGW is far beyond the hypothesis stage. You can't make something so, just by saying it. As for your analysis, it fails a basic test of logic to be considered proof of anything. Just because something had a particular cause or time course in the past, doesn't prove that this time there isn't a different cause and time course, particularly given the fact that humans emit more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year!

What he's saying, is that because these events have happened numerous times before, you can't truthfully find a cause now. A "hypothesis" for previous warming and cooling trends before humans existed are volcanoes, sun radiation fluxuations, the earth's rotation and tilt, etc.... But these are just hypotheses, they're not proven fact. Scientists can hypothesize that 250,000,000 years ago there was possible elevated volcanic activity, causing the earth to warm, but they don't know, they weren't there. So, not knowing what caused it then, how can we assume that we're causing it now? This still doesn't answer the question as to why the other planets in our solar system are warming as well.

Silly ass. All the other planets in our solar system are not warming up. A flat out and easily provable lie. Not only that, both solar activity and TSI have decreased in the last ten years.

Solar activity, being on a very predictable 11 year cycle, it goes down, then up. Today Solar activity is increasing that would seem to indicate that CO2 is being bombarded with more particles of Cosmic Radiation, thus we should be seeing a very warm winter, which we obviously are not.

Of course the Scientists in 2006 stated that Solar activity increased dramatically, overall, for the 20th century so I am not sure how Old Crock believes Old Crock's post is relevant.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Conversations with a Warmer

OR: Record Snowfall means Global Warming!
CF: Seriously?
OR: Yes! See this model?
CF: Model?
OP: Yes, a computer model showing that cooler and warmer temperatures are cause by AGW
CF: My head hurts
OR: This is real science
CF: I thought real science was done in a lab at some point
OR: Not my science, we have models
CF: So you've reduced all the variables to a increase in the trace element CO2
OR: Fo'shizzle!
CF: But you can't show that in a lab?
OR: Nu uhhh
CF: Why not?
OR: Because there are too many variables at play, fool!
CF: Then how can you say you've isolated it to CO2?
OR: Because the model says so!
CF: What's the guys name who programmed the model?
OR: Phil Jones
CF: And he says Global Warming is for real?
OR: Well, not since 1995, but yeah, he says its for real

 

[BrianH]

I didn't fail in anything. You're just trying to distract from the issue by citing irrelevancies. Answer the question. Why should we expect anything but warming, considering the facts I presented?

Your comment on other planets does not tell me which planets you mean and does not consider the obvious, that there are other conditions, like orbit, which may be influencing things. That happens on earth also, which is why scientists often need "tricks" of the statistical trade to "hide the decline" from other sources and winnow out the contribution of man. You say yourself that gases "ended the Ice Age". Without saying whether that's true or not, why wouldn't gases emitted by man do THE VERY SAME THING?

Christ all mighty your dense. I'm saying that we have no frickin clue what caused it to freeze over, and what caused it to warm. People were not there to experience and/or know why and what caused the earth to WARM. Considering that the earth has warmed and cooled numerous times without human intervention, why can we ASSUME that humans are causing it now??? I'm not saying that it's not possible that humans are contributing to it in some way, I'm saying that it hasn't been proven that humans are causing or contributing significantly to it.

Now Brian, because you are truly ignorant concerning the science of paleo-climatology does not mean that everyone is.

Paleoclimatology : Feature Articles

Calling someone a "silly ass" and "stupid" does not make you seem any more intelligent than you are, especially when the idea of AGW hasn't been proving. I've never seen more BS fly around than in this topic of discussion. It's amazing how 100% certain people can be of something that's never been proven.

 

[Old Rocks]

Christ all mighty your dense. I'm saying that we have no frickin clue what caused it to freeze over, and what caused it to warm. People were not there to experience and/or know why and what caused the earth to WARM. Considering that the earth has warmed and cooled numerous times without human intervention, why can we ASSUME that humans are causing it now??? I'm not saying that it's not possible that humans are contributing to it in some way, I'm saying that it hasn't been proven that humans are causing or contributing significantly to it.

Now Brian, because you are truly ignorant concerning the science of paleo-climatology does not mean that everyone is.

Paleoclimatology : Feature Articles

Calling someone a "silly ass" and "stupid" does not make you seem any more intelligent than you are, especially when the idea of AGW hasn't been proving. I've never seen more BS fly around than in this topic of discussion. It's amazing how 100% certain people can be of something that's never been proven.

Were you to investigate why the earth warmed and cooled in the geological past, you would find that the scientists have very specific ideas as to the reasons. And evidence to back up what they think. I suppose I could proceed with a multi-paragraph essay on the use of proxies in paleoclimatology, but all of that information is there for anyone interested in the subject.

Of course, most are not going to look at the information at all, just spout uninformed yap yap.

 

[mdn2000]

CO2, we need more CO2, it makes things grow, its food for plants, the more CO2 the more food for the world.

Plants grow a lot more with CO2, thousands of experiments proves this as fact, not theory. So more CO2 means more plants, more plants means more CO2 will be consumed. Even Kelp needs CO2, seems like the only thing CO2 is not used for is keeping things warm.

Is there a connection and is it maybe the opposite of what billions of tax dollars in research has continuely failed to prove.

Sheesh, willfull ignorance and stupidity, cubed.

Give the link you most likely have at hand, I am sure your link will prove you wrong. Go ahead Old Crock, I dare you to link. You know the result, I always win if you provide a link so I double dare you.

 

[BrianH]

Now Brian, because you are truly ignorant concerning the science of paleo-climatology does not mean that everyone is.

Paleoclimatology : Feature Articles

Calling someone a "silly ass" and "stupid" does not make you seem any more intelligent than you are, especially when the idea of AGW hasn't been proving. I've never seen more BS fly around than in this topic of discussion. It's amazing how 100% certain people can be of something that's never been proven.

Were you to investigate why the earth warmed and cooled in the geological past, you would find that the scientists have very specific ideas as to the reasons. And evidence to back up what they think. I suppose I could proceed with a multi-paragraph essay on the use of proxies in paleoclimatology, but all of that information is there for anyone interested in the subject.

Of course, most are not going to look at the information at all, just spout uninformed yap yap.

Point-in-case

 

[code1211]

LOL, you need to learn something about science before commenting. There is NO SUCH THING as being "only a theory". Theories are well-reasoned treatises based on years of data. You can't do much better than that. It won't be discarded until YOU PROVE it's false. Until then it's the gold standard for whatever topic is in question. You seem to be thinking of "hypothesis", a much less stringent concept requiring research to get it to the level of "Theory".

You are right, of course. This is so far a hypothesis. AGW does not yet rise to the level of a theory. There has recently been warming. Prior to that there was cooling and prior to that warming. The cooling period of the Little ice Age went on for about 250 to 400 years.

Our current warming has continued for about 230 years if we are to buy into the AGW story line.

The Medieval Warm period last for centuries also. During that warm period, things for humanity were pretty good. During the Little Ice Age, not so much.

We know that Glaciers are receeding to levels prevelant in a time about 5000 years ago. This means we are warming to that level: a level persistant between 8000 and 3000 BC.

Set in a historical perspective, the panic diminishes and we see a simple ebb and flow of climate change.

Superimposing the musings of those who seek funding or who covet the wealth of one nation for another does not add as much light as it adds heat to the debate. Pun intended.

Now you're just making things up. AGW is far beyond the hypothesis stage. You can't make something so, just by saying it. As for your analysis, it fails a basic test of logic to be considered proof of anything. Just because something had a particular cause or time course in the past, doesn't prove that this time there isn't a different cause and time course, particularly given the fact that humans emit more CO2 in days than all the volcanoes on earth do in a normal year!

And that shows that volcanos emit comparitively small amounts of CO2. Compared to ALL of nature, Man causes emissions between 3 and 4 percent of the total with nature emitting the rest.

The leading scientist in the world on the subject is Dr. James Hansen. His three scenarios from 1988 projected climate change based on three different possible emission patterns for CO2. The actual emissions turned out to be higher than the highest projection.

The actual temperature rise turned out to be lower than the lowest prediction.

The actual rise in temperature could be plotted better by simply averaging the past temperature increase and projecting that into the future.

In other words, the increase in CO2 has had no effect on the rate of warming.

Is this evidence the kind that moves a hypothesis into the theory category? Not for my money. One might wonder why, instead, the scientific community so stridently proclaims that something not proven is proven.

-35 in upstate New York doesn't proclaim runaway warming to me.

 

[code1211]

LOL, you need to learn something about science before commenting. There is NO SUCH THING as being "only a theory". Theories are well-reasoned treatises based on years of data. You can't do much better than that. It won't be discarded until YOU PROVE it's false. Until then it's the gold standard for whatever topic is in question. You seem to be thinking of "hypothesis", a much less stringent concept requiring research to get it to the level of "Theory".

There's a reason it's called a theory and not fact...can YOU prove it??? I have yet to see "scientists" prove it. They "think" based on their "research" that humans are causing it... I'm not saying it should be discarded numnuts. I'm saying that I'm not going to start building my survival bunker until it can be proven without a doubt. If you were a climate scientist, what would you do to stay in business??

You have no idea what the reason is for calling it a theory. It's based on facts. Like the fact that some gases have the ability to trap infra-red radiation. The fact that those gases have been going up, since the advent of the Industrial Revolution. If that trend continues, how can you expect anything but warming? Seems to me that YOU have to prove that there's something going on that would prevent this from continuing to its logical conclusion, i.e. more gases, more heat.

That is absolutely wrong.

The Ice Ages did not start repeating until North and South America joined at Panama and changed Ocean Curents. There is a strong correlation betwen the Milankovitch Cycles and the Ice Ages also. The Little Ice Age was probably caused by decreased Solar activity.

The warming following the Little Ice Age predates the Industrial Revolution by about a hundred years. If the warming was not started by increased CO2, why must its continuance necessarily be caused by it?

We are about a degree cooler right now than we were 8000 years ago. 8000 years ago CO2 was lower than today. If CO2 was the main driver of climate, that would be impossible and, yet, it happened. Go figure.

Right now, as the Earth tilts the northern hemisphere further into the Sun light and the Southern hemisphere further out of the Sun light, The northern Hemisphere is warming comparitively while the Southern Hemisphere is cooling comparitively.

The Magnetic field of the planet is changing. The Magnetic north pole has moved hundreds of miles during the period while the warming that you are concerned has been proceeding. We don't understand the effect of the movement of the magnetic field as we don't understand the effect of the increased CO2 and yet you blame the CO2 and not the changing magnetic field.

Any particular reason for that?

Volcanoes fire off and the temperature drops. They are quiet and it rises. Ocean currents, Milankovitch Cycles, solar variation, magnetic fields, tectonic motion, volcanism, the ozone layer and, finally, CO2 which comprises about 3% of the 5% of the air which is GHG.

Of that 3% of the 5%, Man's contribution is about 3% of that.

.03 x .05 x.03 = .000045. To put this into perspective: If you earned $.000045 per hour and worked 40 hours per week for you entire life with no vacations and no sick days, at age 65 you would have earned $4.21. Pray for compound interest.

Skeptics say that there are various proven causes of climate change and that the impact of the contribution of Man to the GHG's is not clearly demonstrated as the primary driver of the climatic changes. Before we change the world, maybe we should be sure what is that we are trying to do and why.

AGW proponents say that there is one main cause of Global Warming and that cause is the contribution of man to the total amount of GHG's. They say that by reducing the amount of man's CO2 emission, the ideal balance of the climate can be restored and we will live in a Paradise of ideal climate. If we don't do this, a state of runaway Green House warming will occur and we will perish as a species and destroy the planet in the bargain. We need to avoid this by immediately stopping the use of fossil fuels which will cause planetary famine, billions of deaths and misery on a biblical scale.

Now, one more time, which is the position that requires perfect proof?