Read other letters about this article

• Tuesday, July 1, 2008 04:20 PM

  manaker

  First of all, “we will continue to change the climate” implies that we really are changing the climate. Sure, some “scientists” and computer nerds are telling us this, but it is just based on a hypothesis, some agenda-driven “science” and a bunch of GIGO computer studies, no facts. The only period where temperature and CO2 rose simultaneously is 1976-1998; otherwise the CO2/temperature correlation is weak. And correlation does not provide any evidence of causation. There are just way too many unknowns.

  “Change it faster?” Stet should check the latest temperature record. It is not only not “changing faster”, it has stopped changing at all. Even the IPCC’s Dr. Pachauri recognizes the current temperature “plateau”, saying he will try to find out what is causing it and adding that he hopes it will not make people think that AGW is “hogwash”.

  Manaker, do you doubt that there's a well studied relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature? This establishes a causative relationship. Correlation plus a causative mechanism isn't just an unsupported hypothesis.

  What data are you looking at that shows temperature isn't changing at all?

  There does seem to be a local peak lately. See the NASA data plotted at http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329. Note that there were also local peaks around 1875 and 1940 - but also note the increases since then. A local peak doesn't equate to a long term trend.

  If "the CO2/temperature correlation is weak", what do you make of Venus?

  —delosgatos Read delosgatos's other letters
  Permalink
  Flag
  Click "Submit Flag" if you feel this post is inappropriate. Explain why below if you wish.

  Cancel