The article in the link is to show clear evidence that you can not trust information presented by the IPCC. The author points out clear evidence of information fraud. Do I believe the article presents a strong argument to support that global warming does or does not exist? No. But that was not the intented purpose - the information was presented to show yet another example of data fraud. Now go run your statistics over a full data set of Antartic land and sea ice readings, and explain to us if the ice is increasing or decreasing over the past 20 years. Be sure to include ALL the data stations, not just 2% that support a global warming theory.
What do you mean by tie? The two are greenhouse gasses. That's the tie. As one was banned a while back, you should have seen, since the time of the banning, 1 - An increase in the correlation between rising temps and CO2, and 2 - A decrease in the rate at which temps are increasing. Both are present in the data. Demonstrably. That's pretty strong evidence the data isn't faked, since most people don't know CFCs were also greenhouse gasses. In other words, there would be no political motive to ginning up the data to show or not show how CFCs affected climate. The fact you can show it with the data as presently published is strong evidence the data is good.
Water and Antifreeze are both liquids. That's a tie. Why don't you drink both of them and let us know how it works out? One is a man-made poison and the other a naturally occuring harmless substance just like CO2.
Like I said, you have no interest in the stats, because you have no interest in actual facts. I notice you haven't even tried to come up with an explanation of how faked data can show something no one is looking for but should logically be there if it's correct. Bye now.
Well I'm not sure what I did to earn your "numbnut" label. I thought we were on the the page and that I've been arguing effectively although perhaps fanatically about AGW. Maybe you misunderstood one of my posts to be an attack on you? If so, that's not the case. That being said and since we're trying to be honest here. Your suppositions about the affect of CFC reduction on GW are suspect for the following reason. CFC's were responsible for about 10% of the radiative forcing (Greenhouse effect) in 1992. They are now responsible for estimated 8.7%. A drop of 1.5 %. And that is of the external ie. manmade forcing agents. Also the drop is merely relative, as CO2 will be a larger component. The actual levels of CFC's in the atmosphere will not decrease appreciably as they persist even though emissions have stopped. Also since water vapor is responsible for about half of shorter term greenhouse gas forcing, the relative forcing potential of CFC's has actually gone down less than 1% and the actual forcing has essentially remained the same. Considering all the other strong short term factors in world temps like the el nino cycles and the reduction in solar input, trying to mathematically associate the banning of CFC's with temps, while perhaps an impressive display of math acumen, is ultimately an exercise in mathematic masturbation. It also an example of the old axiom "crap in = crap out" and that data without context is useless.. Or something like that.
You AGW worrywarts ignore one question. Let's say I concede your entire argument about warming, greenhouse gases, etc. What effect will any actions we take have on it? The answer is nothing to next to nothing. As a practical matter, people are not going to accept going back to the levels of CO2 generation that your models say is needed. Even if we as a country punished ourselves and destroyed our economy to do so, the Chinese, Indians, Brazilians, et al are not going to. For the zealots, simply doing the "right" thing is far more important than any actual outcome or the cost. For the liberals, it's another chance to grab control of more of the economy. For the less developed countries, it's a chance to extort money from us. The whole thing is a giant scam to transfer money from rich western countries to poor southern countries. They expect us to bribe them into going along, even though both we and they know very well it will have no effect on the climate.
So if I tell you that gravity will make things go down and then drop a ball you would still ask for proof that gravity makes things go down. Alllllrighty then. You make no sense. At some point logic and observation needs to employed to determine proof.
You guys really have to it out of your head that AGW is some political power play/conspiracy. It's not. Really. The reason you may think that is simply because of the position taken by the GOP to protect their interests. Much of the power of the GOP comes from big business and no business is bigger than coal/oil. Two words. Nuclear power. Those on the left need to look at it again and accept it as a necessary evil for now.
Sort of interesting. The entire global warming push started when Margaret Thatcher was dealing with the coal mining strike in the U.K. She needed something to reduce the relevancy and power of the striking miners. She pushed nuclear power as an alternative using a number of obscure scientific reports citing 'global warming' (this was back when global cooling was big). Her government piled tons of public money into promoting global warming to break the coal strikers power. Of course, this was also helped by the nuclear industry in the U.K. also pouring money into media promotions citing how dirty coal was heating the earth -- in a self-serving campaign. All of this is outlined in "The Great Global Warming Swindle" video. I would urge you to watch it and learn.
r u out of your fucking mind? you are against CO@ even though you install air conditioners you have no idea if CO2 and warming might lead to more food and a better planet... yet you after seeing what happened at fukushima you think environmentalist should endorse nuclear power. Are we trying to preserve the planet so we can fuck it all up at once? I can not believe people like you exist -- really. I can not imagine anyone being anti CO2 and pro nuclear unless they were being paid by one side or the other. get a plane walk by fukushima and tell me that is the answer. we here in CA may be getting irradiated slowly and you say... lets have some more invisible death instead of plant food which may or may not cause a little bit of warming.