Boy, this guy who wrote this is a serious whack job. In his mind anyone who dissents or disagree, even on his twisted definition of science, must be silenced or destroyed. Can you say Stalino-facist?

maxwell repeatedly claims that non linear systems such as climate cannot be predicted by simplistic models such as the one proposing anthropogenic climate forcing. I agree. We should not throw dust into the atmosphere, fertilize the ocean to produce huge algae blooms, and conduct other "experiments" of amelioration which have unpredictable tertiary effects. Unfortunately, the genie of fossil fuel combustion, which has unpredictable tertiary effects of its own continues unabated. We were not nearly so cautious and politically impotent when it comes to exploiting this resource. We never evaluated the benefits of burning fossil fuels rather than harvesting the hydrogen and using the carbon for carbon reinforced materials. We never considered the non linear consequences of unbridled economic growth. We only saw the hedonistic benefits of profligate wanton expansion.

Huge quantities of solar photonic energy beams directly to the earth daily. The quantity of energy contained in water split by electrolysis and burned as hydrogen circumvents the disastrous effect of perturbing the carbon cycle, with it's concommitant tertiary effects. There can be no denying anthropogenic effects on the environment, from deforestation, 90% reduction in carbon biomass from the oceans, pollution in the air... the list goes on. There are clearly patterns which are discernible within the non linearity. The frequency of chaotic periods is increasing over time. That should tell you something in itself. You want to use language to confuse the layman from seeing what common sense makes obvious, go ahead, you serve only your ego and sense of superiority, not the common good.

I admit to not being persuaded by all the brainpower arrayed on the side of human-induced Global Warming that says real, unimaginable peril is in our collective futures.

However, I remain open to being convinced that such dire warnings have merit so long as the discourse is rational and devoid of name-calling vis a vis "stupid" "Ignorant" etc.

I have a simple question. The last Ice Age (one of many) presumably started about 15,000 years ago because of some sort of Global Cooling event that occurred. It ended about 10,000 years ago presumably because of some Global Warming event that occurred. Now, I don't think Fred Flintstone powered his stone car by burning dead dinosaurs, so the last Global Warming event can be assumed to have had natural causes.

If this is true, then at least one Global Warming event occurred without human intervention, and given that there is a warming event going on now, what is unique about this event that makes it possible to conclude it is caused exclusively by human activity?

That is, unless it can be shown (by scientific comparison to a similar event) that this event is somehow uniquely different from past events, the conclusion that it is human induced is not logical.

Now, given that there has been no similar event in the past (that is human activity involved in global warming) there is no basis for comparison, and thus the conclusion that this event is human caused is illogical.

So, if you want to convince me that global warming is real and is caused by burning dinosaurs, you'll have to find another argument. But keep trying, my mind remains open.

wrote:

1. The bedrock driver of anthropogenic climate change is that CO2 change and temperature change have coincided, thus CO2 must be responsible for temperature change. Careful look at the data shows temperature change occurs first, then CO2 change. See graph here: http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yrfig.htm

As explained in the text of your link, the usual explanation for the ice ages is that something other than CO2 changes caused an initial temperature change which is then amplified by a positive feedback mechanism involving the green house effect when the amount of CO2 dissolved in the ocean changes (due to the initial temperature change and resulting reinforcement). Thus the order of the changes supports the idea that CO2 causes a green house effect, and that anthropogenic releases cause warming.

2. Climate change models have been designed to agree with past temperature data. They have done a very bad job of predicting what will happen, however. They can't explain that temperatures have decreased over the last 10 years although CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased.

No, temperatures have continued to increase in the last decade. References were supplied earlier in this comment section. But no one expects temperatures to increase every year or even every decade. Other effects are present that can temporarily overwhelm the anthropogenic effect.

Neither of your arguments is correct. But you knew that right? Is it not silly to refer to a graph at a link to support your case when the text at the same link interprets the graph in a way that shows you are wrong? Or do you think that no one bothers to read?

I think using off-the-wall journal articles, especially if paid for by the oil companies, is a form of lying. There is a scientific consensus; there is a difference between using it and not using it.

In the interest of FULL disclosure it is important to note that the author of this article operates through an organization titled: The Center for American Progress, which is operated and funded by George Soros and Hillary Clinton. The author attempts to come off as an “altruistic crusader” for environmental causes but is nothing more than a mouthpiece for Clinton/Soros and is a paid political activist.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6709

Just thought that everyone should be aware of who is pulling the strings here.

Please, continue your discussion…….fascinating!

wrote:what is unique about this event that makes it possible to conclude it is caused exclusively by human activity?

1. Anthropogenic release of CO2

2. Relationship between CO2 and global warming (See my response to Jersey Paul just earlier)

3. Computer modeling.

In my opinion (and not everyone agrees), the modeling results are required to make the case completely convincing. So I think there is more work to be done, but you do not have to be a weatherman...