Don’t think I have 100,000 years to read the article. How about the executive summary, or is it worthwhile?
"There is a strong correlation between temperature and CO2 concentrations during this time."
At some point maybe the retarded population of the planet (or at least writers) will learn to read the solubility curve for CO2 in water.
I won't hold my breath... as much as they wish I would... you know, to prevent more unregulated CO2 emissions.
Gee. Imagine analysis that doesn’t presuppose the conclusion before the analysis has been completed. C02 - Global Warming. Which one is the cause? - which one is the effect?
My own personal impression of this AGW thing, or now AGCC as the proponents have rather embarrassingly switched to (due to uncooperative weather), is summed up by that one song, “The Galaxy Song” by Eric Idle.
It reminds me of the utter arrogant effrontery of AGW/CC proponents to assert human activity in the last couple hundred years or so could affect the huge expanse of our atmosphere, our planet’s oceans, AND while pooh-poohing the influence of dear old SOL on it all.
Utter, bullying arrogance stemming from a deep seeded psychotic desire to control the lives of others while they sit in their G5s on the way to some “save the planet from cow fart symposium”.
If I had my way, we’d round up these people and remove this planet’s task of having to process their C02.
I don’t understand how this article could be construed as pro AGW/CC. It seems like the best evidence to be used against it.
GW from the outset was a leftist political movement. The whole world knows it’s a scam now.Even a UN rep said it was to destroy capitalism.
Correlation isn't causal. For example, a lot of trash at the curb correlates to a big Christmas at my house, but placing a lot of trash at my curb in July, does not mean anyone got presents.
I like this line from the article:
Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes— confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases.