Maybe you should consider it. You've obviously expended some serious effort on possible solutions. They do have to be paid for somehow. With the exception of throwing untold trillions down third world shit holes, many of your ideas would be good for man kind and the planet in the long run regardless of GW. Maybe just maybe you guys should spend more time trying to sell these ideas on their own merits instead of trying to convince MMGW skeptics like me of the human influence, if any, on GW. You might make a bit more progress. Just a thought.
The lines are as straight as I can make them with my mouse and the limited amount of time I wanted to spend on it. They're off by a pixel. If that's your best excuse for ignoring what's clearly there you'll have to do better, as others might notice your gymnastics. As for the video, you clearly didn't understand what he was saying -- I've even posted a quote of his for you where he states that CO2 is the ONLY good explanation that fits.
If only someone could calculate out whether it's cheaper in the long run to mitigate the impact or to work on prevention. Oh right, they did. "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."
My "gymnastics?" I cited Alley and 3 sources, yet you still try to refute that with lines that aren't even straight. Who's really doing the gymnastics, littledaviedumbass? Speaking of Alley, what part of "we know that the orbits drive the warming that causes the CO2 rise that causes more warming..." don't you understand? Again you prove your stupidity and ignorance.
The assumption of a low and stable level of CO2 in the pre-industrial atmosphere, and of its recent increase of about 30% as a result of fossil-fuel burning (IPCC 2007), was posed by Callendar (1958) and From and Keeling (1986), after their arbitrary rejection of most of the more than 90,000 technically excellent, direct measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, carried out in America, Asia, and Europe, during 149 years between 1812 and 1961 (Figure 1). These measurements showed that the 5-year average CO2 concentrations fluctuated widely, with a minimum of 290 parts per million by volume (ppmv) in 1885, and peaking up to 440 ppmv around 1820, to about 390 ppmv around 1855, and to about 440 ppmv around 1940 (Beck 2007)âa pattern completely different from a flat and low ice-core record. http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles 2008/Z_J_Climate_Report.pdf
Orbits do drive warming, and that warming causes land and melt based (and possibly ocean based) CO2 emissions, that much is true. But again, as Alley points out repeatedly in the very video which you posted, CO2 is the cause of the current warming. That CO2 is man made -- and he even describes the isotope concentrations. I can only assume you're purposely missing this. Did you even watch your own video?
I'll just quote this for you: "Air mixes through the firn down to the depth at which bubbles are closed off. Therefore new air is trapped in ice that is significantly older. This depth occurs in ice of different ages - i.e. younger ice in higher accumlation cores, and this leads to the 'ice-age/gas-age' difference, which will be different in different cores (it would be 'spooky' only if it were the same). This age difference has nothing whatsoever to do with the filtering of the atmospheric CO2 concentration - that instead is related to the strength of the wind-pumping in the firn and the process of bubble formation and is much much shorter (around 20 years). Oh and by the way, the Mauna Loa record started in 1957 when CO2 was only around 315ppm, and shows almost the same annual values and trend as the South Pole data started at the same time."
The part where you discuss "biased selection" and ironically you cherry-pick a half-century old discredited paper. Here's an article which discusses Callendar's errors, and the items which he got right: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm Yes, you are practicing biased data selection and you seem far more concerned with winning than actually being right.