rotflmao
of course no one has ever heard of a rhetorical question.  
and of course deniers don't need an excuse to ignore the obvious.  

shhhh...  tallowood!
That's heresy!!!!!
What's the sun got to do with climate?

I see no ambiguity in the statement nor a desire to mislead.
Scientists can speak plain English you know if they want to   

There is plenty of ambiguity. For example, he appears to create the strawman than only CO2 concentration drives climate change. In his effort to use questionable rhetorical techniques he misleads the public about the science of global warming. He phrases his question in a way that he knows will lead to many people drawing all sorts of incorrect conclusions. Just because a scientist can use misleading rhetorical techniques does not mean they should, especially when they are taking advantage of public ignorance of their topic.

Soren wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 9:35am:



- because things have changed since the Silurian. The laughable thing about that post is that a geologist should know exactly how inaccurate CO2 proxies are from around 450 million years.

Also - think about my earlier question about the natural log relationship and you might be able to answer the question yourself.

(Oh I forgot - you prefer to cut and paste rather than think independently. )

Apart from that, the periods where CO2 concentration was high coincided with periods where the earth had extensive and dense rainforests. Compare that to today and it's obvious that we're dealing with chalk and cheese. Biota provides buffering capacity.

Our proxies for CO2 are about as inaccurate as our proxies for solar irradiance during that period.

CO2 and temperature are inter-related, as I have explained, increase one and the other increases, but hey, let's compare apples with apples.

Grendel wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 1:59pm:

Why do I bother?  Look Grendel, read the section that explains the difference between Weather and Climate and make sure you understand the distinction before posting such inane comments. 
Here:

http://epa.gov/climatechange/kids/index.html

Were the continents in significantly different positions back then?

freediver wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 9:44pm:


Well yes they were. A Wiki link tells a thousand words:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gondwana

muso wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2008 at 9:49pm:


Odd that a geologist wouldn't mention that in comparing conditions back then to today.