(04-26-2019, 12:57 PM)mikesez Wrote:

(04-25-2019, 11:44 PM)jj82284 Wrote: Malabar already posted it!  

As for his response, it wasn't an answer it was pure equivocation.  

1.) Some of The best Data we have for the past surface temps comes from the ice Core samples.  The Alarmists don't like to talk about them because they don't paint the empirical narrative that you would expect.  There are also many recorded instances where the Earth had ZERO or negligible ice caps and life went on and in most cases thrived under the more tropical climates.  

2.) If he's actually comparing a clear bottle and sunlight to the most complex and diverse eco-system in the known universe then I don't know what to tell you.  Within the planet there is an almost limitless amount of feedback loops and variables that contribute to the relative stasis of surface temps going back to the earliest samples we have to the present day.  Trying to isolate that in one clear plastic bottle is pretty silly. 

3.) I'm glad to see that someone actually acknowledges that the giant fusion engine that is responsible for 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999 (I could keep going)% of all energy on the planet might have a say in surface temperatures, it just completely destroys the alarmist narrative.  

4.) I am also glad to see him acknowledge that in reality a deviation of 1* C over the course of 150 years (or even the idea of an AVERAGE surface temperature given the diversity of the globe.) is potentially within the margin of error.  Again, it just destroys his argument.  

So basically I confronted him with an objective analysis of the data and he went on to contradict his own point to try and worm his way out of it.  Life doesn't work that way.  

I have said it before, and I will say it again.  co2 isn't the most potent greenhouse gas, its not even close.  95% of the greenhouse affect is water vapor.  of that 5% left less than half is co2.  of that less than half all human activity including our collective exhaling is less than 10% of global emissions.  Of that human activity america is only about 25% ish.  When you actually look at the math you realize that the NEW GREEN DEAL can only come from the AOC's of the world.  

Getting back to the topic at hand, general rule of thumb is that price is a general reflection of the resources required to bring a product to market.  The statist idea of government subsidizing or financing less efficient means of energy production as a means of conservation doesn't make any economic sense.  We are going to consumer more resources to feel like we are using less?

I'm just not seeing the alleged lead-lag behavior in the graph.  Maybe it can turn up if you massage the data but I see some peaks lead with temperate while others lead with CO2.
Temperature and CO2 obviously correlate.
So if you saw just this graph and nothing else, and someone told you that CO2 is increasing, then  asked you to bet if temperature would go up down or stay the same in response, any sane person would bet on "up".