Next time a climate mental midget tries to tell you that 97% of scientists say that humans are the cause of climate change, you might suggest they get a lobotomy. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
The 12C swings in temperature which Earth regularly experiences have been primarily due to Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal aerosols.
the graph indicates humans have smoothed the warming peak and helped the planet avoid a huge climatic swing
exactly….that’s what I’m looking at
Every time temperatures have gone up, they drag CO2 levels up with it.
And every time CO2 levels peak, temperatures crash again.
This last time, it looks like CO2 levels peaked, and stopped temperatures from going up as high as they normally would……
Just looking at that, you would say that CO2 makes the climate cooler
Plus, this whole science is based on a 1 degree increase in temperatures, coming out of the Little Ice Age………….
Thinking of Venus, and the Moon, if there’s one thing the GHGs actually do, it’s making planetary surface temperatures vary less between day and night than in their absence. The graph above is consistent with this interpretation. And so are the expected larger increases in temp at the poles than the tropics.
Ditto for Mercury.
Over 50% of recent warming is due to human error in recording temperature data. Human, One might loosely claim, Climatologists are therefore the primary cause of most of the recent warming they claim to see.
We only assume we left the LIA behind. Some records show similar warming during the LIA and we have not achieved the temperatures of the MWP.
Not to mention CO2 lags temperature and not the other way around, I never figured out how once that was debunked when in Al’s movie the sham wasn’t over right then and there.
I know why:
That is all.
Somewhat off topic, but here is an excellent (but lengthy) essay entitled, “The Failure of Al Gore, Part 1”. One part that jumped out at me is as follows:
Not all character flaws are inconsistent with positions of great dignity. General Grant’s fondness for whiskey did not make him unfit for command. Other statesmen have combined great public achievement with failure in their personal lives. Franklin Roosevelt was neither a good father nor a good husband; Edward VII was a better monarch than man.
But while some forms of inconsistency or even hypocrisy can be combined with public leadership, others cannot be. A television preacher can eat too many french fries, watch too much cheesy TV and neglect his kids in the quest for global fame. But he cannot indulge in drug fueled trysts with male prostitutes while preaching conservative Christian doctrine. The head of Mothers Against Drunk Driving cannot be convicted of driving while under the influence. The head of the IRS cannot be a tax cheat. The most visible leader of the world’s green movement cannot live a life of conspicuous consumption, spewing far more carbon into the atmosphere than almost all of those he castigates for their wasteful ways. Mr. Top Green can’t also be a carbon pig.
You can be a leading environmentalist and fail to pay all of your taxes. You can be a leading environmentalist and be unkind to your aged mother. You can be a leading environmentalist and squeeze the toothpaste tube from the middle, park in the handicapped spots at the mall or scribble angry marginal notes in library books.
But you cannot be a leading environmentalist who hopes to lead the general public into a long and difficult struggle for sacrifice and fundamental change if your own conduct is so flagrantly inconsistent with the green gospel you profess. If the heart of your message is that the peril of climate change is so imminent and so overwhelming that the entire political and social system of the world must change, now, you cannot fly on private jets. You cannot own multiple mansions. You cannot even become enormously rich investing in companies that will profit if the policies you advocate are put into place.
It is not enough to buy carbon offsets (aka “indulgences”) with your vast wealth, not enough to power your luxurious mansions with exotic low impact energy sources the average person could not afford, not enough to argue that you only needed the jet so that you could promote your earth-saving film.
You are asking billions of people, the overwhelming majority of whom lack many of the basic life amenities you take for granted, people who can’t afford Whole Foods environmentalism, to slash their meager living standards. You may well be right, and those changes may be necessary — the more shame on you that with your superior insight and knowledge you refuse to live a modest life. There’s a gospel hymn some people in Tennessee still sing that makes the point: “You can’t be a beacon if your light don’t shine.”
Steven, you’re cherry picking! According to the link to that graph it only goes to the year 2000.
We all know that the last decade has been unprecedented due to Chinese coal burning and George W Bush. Why isn’t it shown? Why are you only showing the last 400,000 years before that? What are you trying to hide?
A mind may be a terrible thing to waste, but they have proven that theirs are already wasted.
Interesting graph from a comment on WUWT
Delta-CO2-concentration over 12 months corresponds EXACTLY to tropospheric temps
It seems apparent that the human contribution to warming, if any, is small compared to natural causes. Since a cyclical return to an Ice Age is by far the greater threat for humanity, a small contribution to warming is probably beneficial.
I’ll see your 77 scientists (those are the ones making up the 97%) and raise you the 31,000+ who say, “No, it’s not.”
The ones who composed the 97% didn’t even say that humans were the cause of climate change. They said its hotter than 1800 and humans have had a significant impact (something barely measureable) – given the temperature record mostly consists of heat islands humans definitely caused those heat islands.