Registered On: September 7, 2015
I’m not getting too involved with this, but you only highlight your own ignorance here. I didn’t say there wasn’t a correlation, but it’s unlikely to meet the exact standards of a fit over 150 years, because of things like short term solar cycles. Nor is CO2 the only driver, and many of the other drivers are only increasing in amplitude because of warming induced by CO2. CO2 induces a more humid atmosphere, which means more water and more influence from that. So when looking at CO2 against temperature over time there will be influence from this, which distorts. This doesn’t challenge anything regarding CO2 causing climate change, because the mechanisms are understood.
We can see how CO2 increase can cause temperature increase, we can see how distortions may be because of feedback loops or other short term variations. We have a good idea of what causes climatic imbalance and none of the other factors are as correlated with temperature rise as CO2. You inferthat the imbalances caused by short term fluctuations (such as the Sun) remove the certainty from CO2 causing it. However, without the knowledge of the science, you fail to explain how this could possibly bring on current climate change. Is the climate really sensitive to the 7 year increase in solar activity and less so to the decrease? There’s no evidence for this. If you cannot explain it with empirical evidence, science will go with what we have evidence for.
What we have evidence for is a greenhouse effect. All other known factors are not present. You cannot present such, so will not be able to sway actual scientists. Failing to understand mechanisms and limitations in your own arguments will not impress scientists involved, the majority of which support anthropogenic climate change. If you cannot give evidence for how factors in past climate change can explain today’s warming, when CO2 can, then it will be ignored. If you cannot state what the natural source of climatic imbalance is you will be ignored. We can see evidence for how the Sun and orbital patterns impacts climate, we see it in the seasons, but these haven’t meaningfully changed over 150 years. We have no evidence of some other natural forcer in this time, so stating that it’s natural because of statistical assumptions does not make sense, when we have a mechanism for CO2 induced warming and statistical variations can be explained with other factors which can be accounted for.
It is not some sacrilege to go against your views and I can only interpret it as your ego acting here when you try and degrade others. Those with large egos tend to explain difference in opinion from others (in this case the vast majority of scientists) as some conspiracy against them, because they cannot possibly be wrong. Those with large egos tend to ignore the questions over their assumptions, because to challenge them would dent their pride. I have tried doing so in the past, but have given up, because I no longer see the point. It’s only wasting valuable time. This is not an innate fault of mine to see it as futile, maybe you should look at yourself in the mirror.
The general observation is that you are obsessed with the subject. I am not meaning to be personally abusive here, before you get outraged again. It is meant to be an honest assessment on how you debate. I don’t think you’re a bad person, but I have opinions on what I consider to be your flaws and I am honest with you about them, because I don’t want to give false impressions. I have opinions on why you argue as you do and will say such, because it’s not about political correctness. I state such (e.g. my opinions on your ego), not to be nasty, but because it’s that which I believe to be a flaw here and I am expressing such to state what I see to be an issue as to why you don’t accept science in climatology, as I perceive it.
Of course, feel free to disagree, but I defend my rights to hold my own opinions on how you conduct debate. You do bring up good points, certainly on other things, and it is worthwhile to have opposite viewpoints to the general forum consensus (which is mostly left leaning), but you are not imperfect. I defend my right to call out imperfections as I perceive them. I am aware that I have my faults too, and things like overly opinionated could be attributed to me as well!