We saw what the advocates of the global warming religion did when using tree ring data that didn't fit the narrative.
In regards to Question #2. From what I’ve read, temperatures followed CO2 levels during the Snowball Earth period. The lowering of CO2 levels caused a drop in global mean temperature which plunged the Earth into a deep freeze. Over the course of millions of years, volcanic activity put enough CO2 back into the atmosphere to warm it enough to start melting the ice and snow. At both the beginning an end of the Snowball Earth era, global mean temperatures followed CO2 levels.
We saw what the advocates of the global warming religion did when using tree ring data that didn't fit the narrative.
[[temperatures followed CO2 levels during the Snowball Earth period.]]
No it didn’t- as posted above, temperatures, by most records available, preceded CO2 rises and falling- as well, other factors contributed to rising and falling CO2, like the earth greening when tmps rose and plants abounded, which in turn helped cool the earth, at which point CO2 began falling - temps were already falling- falling CO2 levels didn’t precede the fall in temps-
“the evidence shows this can’t be true; temperature changes before CO2 in every record of any duration for any time period; CO2 variability does not correlate with temperature at any point in the last 600 million years; atmospheric CO2 levels are currently at the lowest level in that period;”
Myth: The close correlation of CO2 and temperature, as temperature has gone up and down over the last 400,000 years, proves that CO2 is causing the climate changes.
Fact: Since 1999, multiple technical, peer reviewed articles have been available that demonstrate exactly the opposite conclusion. CO2 changes lagged temperature changes as temperature increased or decreased. Temperature changed and then, several hundred years later, CO2 levels changed. Since a cause does not follow an effect, this indicates that CO2 is not a primary driver of climate change.
http://plantsneedco2.org/default.aspx?menuitemid=371
By the way, if I am starting to sound snippy and sarcastic, it is because this hoax generates a significant amount of anger in me.
I don’t know you, I don’t recall reading your posts before, so I should stress that my anger is not directed at you beyond your apparent embrace of man-caused global warming. For all I know, you may be an amiable Freeper who happens to believe the leftist narrative on man-caused global warming.
You should note that I am not the least bit interested in denying that global temperatures have been rising for some time. That is not the issue.
The issue is whether that warming has been caused by natural cyclical processes or by man-caused processes.
I am firmly convinced that this is primarily a natural cyclical process. I have considered the view of man-caused global warming, and I find in flawed in its conception and presentation. Advocates of man-caused global warming simply refuse to consider that there are other reasons the climate could be warming, and have fixated on man-caused activity regardless of other data.
That isn’t Science. It is dogma.
And it makes me extremely angry because that money that our own government (not to mention the UN and the EU) want to take out of OUR pockets to pay for this is not trivial, the costs are enormous.
The measures these statists want to impose on us will cost jobs and money, money we could have spent to pay down the debt, national defense, infrastructure repair, or any number of worthy things instead of pissing it away on this crap, and I resent it greatly.