“The reconstructed temperature record is not inconsistent with theories of high climate sensitivity to CO2, which, though the scientists did not actually study the problem, they felt the need to mention to get attention and funding.”

***************************************
The study was not about the link or lack of link between CO2 and warming. The problem wasn’t even studied.

The authors felt it necessary to make an obeisance to the Gods of Global Warming to assure their access to future funding. Kind of like a rain dance to assure good crops.

The public was shown the CO2 Vs Temperature graph in “An Inconvenient Truth” they were told that because CO2 and Temperature went up and down together that somehow proved that CO2 caused temperature rise. [It did fool some people.]

The fact that CO2 went up 800 years later was obfuscated. [Which is a form of lying] The public was then led to believe that since it was true in the past it must be true in the future. It hadn’t been proved that it existed in the past but that point was obfuscated.

The fact that any effect of CO2 was just a guess and not a measurement was obfuscated also.

They used this past connection which was never measured as proof of a future connection which is true if you say more temperature causes more CO2. The other direction, CO2 causes Temperature, has never been measured and is theoretical at best.

So tricking people into thinking we somehow can prove that CO2 caused warming in the past is untrue.

We cannot even measure it today with satellites going over every day, but somehow we CAN MEASURE it thousands of years ago ? Ridiculous.

If the climate alarmists had confessed that the warming of CO2 was a guess at best I would have respected that, but they had to obfuscate.

The dishonesty and obfuscation are so thick they are impossible to ignore.

That is one reason out of dozens that I am a skeptic.

Why lie and obfuscate a point that anyone with an IQ greater than his body temperature can see is a fib ?

Never said anything like that. Said I don’t know and neither do you.

**** “The fallacy is self evident.”

Only in the deniosphere which cherry-picks its information.

**** “Sugarplum fairies were there Sugarplum fairies are a GHG so Sugarplum fairies caused warming.”

Could not have come up with a better example of the denio-mentality if I had tried.

**** “We cannot measure the effect in 2010 with satellites circling the globe and hundred’s of scientists taking data and studying the problem !”

Or do you not like what the measurements say and therefore you are denying them. Hence the deniosphere. Your arguments are only convincing on blogspaces like this – that’s why you stay safely here. You preach to no one but the choir.

**** “An Inconvenient Truth”

Or are you really just mad at Al Gore because he represents the other end of the political spectrum?

And now, really must run.

What a weird challenge – particularly given my repeated arguments on this blog. Am I wrong or is CO2 accepted as a greenhouse gas? Even Pat Moffitt acknowledges that in his post above. I suppose, netdr, that it may be proven that CO2 does not affect the atmosphere in the way we think it does; and I suppose that it may be proven that CO2 levels and the global warming trend are some sort of natural phenomenon – but here again I must refer to the scientists who believe the evidence points to anthropocentric warming.
*****************

Wald wrote”
“but here again I must refer to the scientists who believe the evidence points to anthropocentric warming. ”

That is where we part company. I think they have created a catastrophe where none exists or will exist.

Without a potential catastrophe their source of funds would dry up. Lysenkoism used the same methods and it worked for them. [The prevalent belief isn't necessarily the truth.]

Thanks for admitting that the effect of CO2 on the recovery from the ice ages has never been measured and is at best a guess ! The public is lied to and told the effect is known when it isn’t.

Perhaps there is some study which measured this effect and it is hidden away and kept a secret from the rest of us. How likely is that ? If such a study existed it would be cited on page 1 of USA today and other liberal papers.

The fallacy is self evident.

CO2 was there CO2 is a GHG so CO2 caused warming. With circular reasoning like that scientists could go far.

Sugarplum fairies were there Sugarplum fairies are a GHG so Sugarplum fairies caused warming.

If the effect of CO2 could be measured the fallacy wouldn’t be a fallacy would it ?

The feedbacks are even more difficult to measure and greatly effect the total warming. The “C” in CAGW is where the real smoke and mirrors come into play.

We cannot measure the effect in 2010 with satellites circling the globe and hundred’s of scientists taking data and studying the problem ! Are we supposed to believe we can somehow measure it thousands of years ago ? Pure nonsense.

When I looked at the arguments about “An Inconvenient Truth” I noticed that all the climate alarmists parroted the same fallacious argument. I wondered if they were all mentally challenged or so in love with an ideology that they turned their brains off. I decided the latter was correct.

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide always increase as the oceans warm. Sea level always rises when the oceans warm.

These are natural cycles that correlate well with the changes of the planet’s positition and motions relative to the sun. Furthermore, the sun is a variable star and our knowledge of its variability is quite limited.

Most don’t understand that the abuses you hear people ranting about with respect to AGW are not new. EPA and the environmental movement have distorted science for 40 years. Prior to the internet EPA did this with impunity. Some of the anger you hear on the internet is decades of suppression finally given voice.

I’ll leave you with one of EPAs greatest slight of hand. EPA claims that 50% of all man made chemicals are carcinogenic. And they are correct if you use EPAs protocols. What EPA doesn’t tell you is that 50% of all natural compounds are also carcinogenic by these same tests. But EPA won’t provide funding for natural testing. (Or explain how they threw away century old knowledge that the dose makes the poison- its still true everywhere but at EPA) How differently would we look at carcinogens if we were aware that using EPA protocols wine, beer, comfrey, tomatos were among the most carcinogenic of all compounds How do we know this- Dr Ames at Berkely – the Ames of the Ames Mutagenicity test- the darling of the early EPA- until he started to test natural compounds only to be later slandered by EPA for his efforts (another 60 Minutes this one on Alar)Go to http://potency.berkeley.edu/herp.html. You see the problem is you are only a good scientist if you agree with what EPA wants you to agree with. So your simple solution to seek truth by following the lead of scientist isn’t so simple. Scientist don’t lead- they follow.

What a weird challenge – particularly given my repeated arguments on this blog. Am I wrong or is CO2 accepted as a greenhouse gas? Even Pat Moffitt acknowledges that in his post above. I suppose, netdr, that it may be proven that CO2 does not affect the atmosphere in the way we think it does; and I suppose that it may be proven that CO2 levels and the global warming trend are some sort of natural phenomenon – but here again I must refer to the scientists who believe the evidence points to anthropocentric warming.

All along, my droogy, I have said I am not a scientist and I do not know if AGW is real or not. All along I’ve said that, but the people here seem to have divided the world into alarmists and denialists. Also I have said all along that I think we amateurs should step out of the way and let the scientists do the scientific work. That is why I am here.

You do not know and cannot prove that AGW is a “fallacy” anymore than I can prove that CO2 warming is a reality. Neither of us can do it. That’s why we should leave it up to the scientists. You may wish to “think for yourself,” but it is fairly clear you do not have the analytical tools to do so in this context.

@ Pat Moffitt, this is the real me:

http://backseatcuddler.com/2007/09/03/brad-pitt-attacked-by-crazy-italian/sexy-brad-pitt/

Be traveling for a bit but will check in when I can. You’ll all be in my thoughts.

Cheers.