Wrong again. I never said any such thing. What I said, and have said consistently is that, "The proof for that assertion does not exist." Keep the facts straight - it's easier to remember them that way. I do not, nor have I insulted you or anyone else who disagrees with me. That's just purely an emotional response to being told you aren't consistent. I forgive your silliness.
You crack me up, Merlin. I imagine that, to you, "silliness, " is not an insult, too? The hypocrisy is so shameless here that one can cut it with a knife.
The proof certainly exists that the world is warming up. Here is another graph that shows the CO2/temperature Vosktok Ice core correlation (CO2, again, being the part in blue):
You mentioned four other time periods where CO2 lagged, it did not follow, All that proved was that CO2 was not the instigator of those warming trends. Warming trends take about 5000 years to complete. As I said, there is a lag time when it comes to CO2, and even though it may not have been the instigator, it certainly did function as an amplifier to the warming taking place, most likey being responsible for 5/6 of even those warming trends. As I said, the relationship between CO2 and temps is complex.
Wrong again. I have, in here and elsewhere, admitted many errors. I make them. The difference between us has nothing to do with ego and everything to do with experience. The most obvious side effect to more experience (on my behalf) is that I do not engage in discussions that I do not know a hell of a lot about; take note of the few threads I do participate in.
If you are suggesting that I am not acquainted with this subject, you are entitled to your opinion (mistaken though it is). From the way it looks to me, you are simply of the opinion that anyone who doesn't agree with your own point of view doesn't know what they are talking about which is, you'll excuse me, a completely self-centered, narcissistic point of view.
And you can have it, too. The day I have to belittle someone's intelligence during a debate is the day I will know I am in the wrong.
In this case, I participate in two formal scientific/academic forums - both of which are the primary reason for why I am completely up-to-date on the latest information. They are also the reason why I was able to read the IPCC report long before it was issued and how I know that the models, simulations and predictions are all incorrect. This is also how I know that the retrodictions invalidate the theory.
We only have your word that they are incorrect. Since you have made clear that you have a certain bias on the subject, I am not even certain we can trust your interpretation of the data. In any event, if the case for global warming were getting weaker, we would actually be seeing hints of that with each new report being released. It's not there, if anything, the predictions are getting more dire. The lack of scientific disagreement in the press (for, at least the last ten years now) speaks volumes.
The evidence that is being spoon-fed to the public certainly does. But you are mistaken to think that there are more scientists moving toward it than away... This goes back to the discussion earlier - you aren't seeing what you don't want to see.
There isn't any evidence of that either.
All-in-all, you admit that you do not understand a bit of this and you further acknowledge just how complicated this is. That's a good start.
And I never said that either, I said the relationship between CO2 and temps is complicated, I have always said that, at the old forum and at this one. Again, you seem to think that climate works only in a linear progression, with either one factor affectiing temps and only one, and that is simply not the case. I'm really getting a bit tired of explaining this.
On the other hand, if we artificially kick start the process by "mysteriously" increasing carbon (replicating mankind's influence) we have to achieve levels of carbon a hundred times higher than current levels in order to net a temp increase of 1oC. Unfortunately, carbon levels a hundred times higher than today would change our entire existence. This model also predicts that the world's oceans would have dissipated that heat immediately. Like I said - the models don't work.
Yes, they do work, the oceans have risen in degrees (causing coral reef to be dying off), you keep ignoring the lag time, you're using only a small sampling of years. Believe what you want, though, it's apparently a free country. If you believe there are errors in the new data and that scientists are lining up to follow the skeptic position, my advice would be to stop talking about it and make yourselves known to the press. You are certainly not doing any good talking among yourselves.
