If nature itself could produce those rapid spikes in temperature before, why can't it be responsible for it today? Today's spike is neither more rapid nor bigger.
Kim O'Hara wrote: Alex123 wrote:
I've posted reasonable questions, such as in viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963&start=180#p113327
I understand that those graphs really complicate the issue by pulling a rug under their main arguments and scare tactics.
(1) There is no question in the post you link to.
Kim O'Hara wrote:(2) The graphs are irrelevant as I have said before. Much of the material you have posted is factually incorrect as well as irrelevant, and I'm ignoring all of it.
They are fully relevant. Why?
Because they show that temperature can rise high and quickly NATURALLY and without any human near-zero contribution. As you can see, modern rise is neither more extreme nor different from previous rises.If natural-only explanation can be used for those spikes such as at ~150K, 250K, and 350K years ago - Why can't the same explanation be used today?
Why complicate the matter by adding un-necessary anthropogenic cause if nature is sole and sufficient explanation itself?
Kim O'Hara wrote:(3) Your post -again- fails to answer the question in my post that it purports to respond to. That is not dialogue and not polite. You will be shouting into a void until you do answer - as thoughtfully as you can manage - that fundamental question.
There is no dialogue because AGW folks can't answer those questions. So at best, they deny the science that shows the full picture - that climate
change was happening for a long period of time, and today's change is neither unique, nor more rapid or extreme. Humans are really insignificant with their 0.00 something% contribution to an atmosphere of a gas (CO2) that doesn't even cause GW. CO2 is used by plants, so it is actually good for them. Today it seems there us relatively little amount of this necessary plant food.viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963&start=140#p112619
I don't find it very believable to call AGW scientific, and deny all the scientific data that strongly rejects it. We can definitely call AGW an eco-religion, and beyond scientific disproof - but then AGW is profitable faith based religion that pays well. It is a great way to add more taxes.
CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html