Replies

Please explain your logic, focusing on how anthropogenic causality SHOULD appear in the data.

Isn't that the basis for the whole "Global Warming" dogma? ...that it's happening as a direct result of mankind's use (overuse?) of fossil fuels? Without proven anthropogenic causality, what are we to do? If the alleged warming is not caused by man, I would argue that it is outside the control of man. If it is outside the control of man, yet still occurring, we should prepare for survivability, rather than engage in futile efforts of reversal. Without anthropogenic causality, solutions like Kyoto are meaningless and empty from the outset.

Now, all of this is, of course, predecated upon the assumption that a trend of warming outside of normal fluctuations is, in fact, occurring at all.

You said: What's most significant to me is that the data do not correlate to the increase of fossil fuel usage. I still see no anthropogenic causality whatsoever.

Your statement implies that you have a clear idea of how anthropogenic causality should appear. What it should look like; it's fingerprint, so to speak. So I asked you to tell me what you're looking for. What pattern or trend should you see in the data (and in what data will you be seeking this pattern or trend)?

And so you responded:

which obviously didn't answer the question I asked.

So I shall assist you. Please examine:

The Sun's Role in 20th century climate change

and this figure in particular:

and comment on what it might be indicating. For help, consult:

Solar activity and climate

Get back to me whenever you're ready.