muso wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 7:03pm:


No.  It's a silly speculation based on speculation upon speculation.

Ostriches are very much with us, yet when science is stumped, it will say things like 'aimlessly beating about the bush for no apparent reason'. It seems that it is OK to say about a relatively simple organism, such as an ostrich, that we don't quite know what makes it tick (ie it is too complex for our comprehension), yet the entire global climate, far more complex than a silly African bird,  is understood, a simple theory encompasses all that we ever need to know about it, namely - we change it. That's it.

See, kids?? Science is easy if you know how.

Soren wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 8:25pm:


I'm sorry, but you have demonstrated time and time again that you can't grasp even the most basic aspects of science. For that reason, you are eminently unqualified to comment on it.

We are talking here about very basic atmospheric science. That's all you need to understand the issue. As far as the study that you brought up is concerned, it's totally irrelevant. It might be an attempt to reconstruct some aspects of the Mesozoic period, but that's as far as it goes.

The very fact that you bring this up and say - "See! it's all speculation" shows that you don't appreciate that fact, or more likely that you don't want to appreciate that fact.  I somehow think that you're still stuck in some kind of silly adolescent time warp when it comes to science, and you haven't quite got past the puerile giggling stage when it comes to anything vaguely scientific.  I should imagine that your science teacher was "stumped" trying to teach you anything.

- Yet you have the capacity. You are capable of understanding, but you deny yourself the opportunity of learning.

muso wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 7:48am:



Actually, we aren't. We are talking about man made global climate change (for the worse, always for the worse).
If it was really all that simple, then there would be a demonstrable  correlation between CO2 levels and temperature changes. But there isn't. Because it's not that simple.
There are other factors outside our control. We don't quite know how or why they do what they do (a bit like the ostrich and his bush, in this regard).

Was there a little ice age a few hundred years ago, or wasn't there? A warm period before that? is there certainty about the causes of their starts and ends? How do those causes operate now?

Or to put it simply - why doesn't temperature rise in parallel with increased atmospheric CO2? What stops the direct colleration (ie the very basic atmospheric science) to operate?

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 1:46pm:


They usually try to "microcorrelate", picking and choosing start and end dates to coincide with the ENSO fluctuations.  They don't like it if you smooth over the ENSO fluctuations by taking a running mean of 15 years or more.

muso wrote on May 15^th, 2012 at 7:56pm:



Oh dear.   

"a hypothesis that is blatantly obvious"   

Are you suggesting that there are people who deny the existence of the AGW hypothesis?  Surely not.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 3:13pm:


Uncle Meat, you don't seem confident enough to define where your skepticism begins and end. There is no real scientific debate about the anthropogenic nature of our rising atmospheric CO2, yet you are skeptical about this basic premise. To deny this is akin to denying plate tectonics or evolution.

We need to move on and you are dragging your feet because you are looking for some sort of absolutism. Compared to you Chamberlain seems infinitely more rational.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 16^th, 2012 at 7:10pm:



You dirty old duffer.