Yes... FC we have seen all of your insane posts. It is clear that "let the crazy hang out" no longer only applies to the rolls of fat outside the clothing of your recent date.
The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys. National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on climate change. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized: Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5] Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6] Benefits and costs of climate change for [human] society will vary widely by location and scale.[7] Some of the effects in temperate and polar regions will be positive and others elsewhere will be negative.[7] Overall, net effects are more likely to be strongly negative with larger or more rapid warming.[7] The range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time.[8] The resilience of many ecosystems is likely to be exceeded this century by an unprecedented combination of climate change, associated disturbances (e.g. flooding, drought, wildfire, insects, ocean acidification) and other global change drivers (e.g. land-use change, pollution, fragmentation of natural systems, over-exploitation of resources).[9] No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists,[10] which in 2007[11] updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[12]
Canada recently hosted "Junk Science Week" Of course, Climate Change was called out once again as the biggest example of Junk Science.
Yup... climate models that the IPCC commissioned didn't produce the desired results. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?p=3990986&#post3990986
For those interested in the real science... not FCs propaganda... here is a very interesting article on ice core resolution of CO2. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/a-brief-history-of-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide-record-breaking/
We don't listen to right wing denialist fraudulent propaganda sources. Try NOAA. Why oh why can't you ever use reliable sources? You are a joke.
What do you "think" jem. Using the term think very loosely. As a lying sack of shit what do you think? Manmade CO2 increase or not?
You are comparing ice core data with modern instrument data... they are not the same data sets. If you read the articles you would know that were you to even compare the more recent ice cores with the greater resolution you would see much higher past co2 levels. And if you look at all the other proxies we have we see co2 levels in the thousands in the past. The article also showed that co2 out raced man made co2 until co2 paused during the thirties and forties while temperatures soared. So you cause and effect relationship is all screwed for many reasons. Read the articles see the data... educate yourself. summary... We do know how much of the co2 increase is man made because the models agw nutters use have failed. and we have zero science showing man made co2 causes warming.
So what if they are not the same data sets? The resulting chart is accurate enough to see that there has been a huge spike. Is it from man or not? Stop avoiding the essential point and putting up smoke screens you lying POS.