[gondramB]

>The chart definitely busts the “man made” aspect of the theory of global warming.<

No one chart is gonna make or bust the man-made aspect of global warming - its complex.

For example there was a flat spot in temperatures between 1945-1976 that human casuists don't like to talk about.

But there are CO2 core ice measures that correlate over the long run (10,000 years +) than any other single factor.

Its complicated and my horse is the race is try to suggest conservatives
1. Acknowledge that global temperature has gone up a degree this century and that lately the increase has accelerated
2. But focus on "why" rather than "if."

The likely "why" is gonna be a complex blend of factors and too little study is going into determining how much of this is within our control - its too much "us vs. them."

[dfwgator]

The Earth is not fragile.

[ancient_geezer]

But there are CO2 core ice measures that correlate over the long run (10,000 years +) than any other single factor.

There is a minor problem with that correlation, in that rising temperatures from other factors, releases CO2 into the atmosphere by melting ice, heating the oceans, the increase in biological activity and similar such factors.

 

Here Comes the Sun

"Carbon dioxide, the main culprit in the alleged greenhouse-gas warming, is not a "driver" of climate change at all. Indeed, in earlier research Jan Veizer, of the University of Ottawa and one of the co-authors of the GSA Today article, established that rather than forcing climate change, CO2 levels actually lag behind climatic temperatures, suggesting that global warming may cause carbon dioxide rather than the other way around."

***

"Veizer and Shaviv's greatest contribution is their time scale. They have examined the relationship of cosmic rays, solar activity and CO2, and climate change going back through thousands of major and minor coolings and warmings. They found a strong -- very strong -- correlation between cosmic rays, solar activity and climate change, but almost none between carbon dioxide and global temperature increases."

 

CO2-Temperature Correlations

• "(1) correlation does not prove causation, (2) cause must precede effect, and (3) when attempting to evaluate claims of causal relationships between different parameters, it is important to have as much data as possible in order to weed out spurious correlations.
  
  ***
  
  Consider, for example, the study of Fischer et al. (1999), who examined trends of atmospheric CO2 and air temperature derived from Antarctic ice core data that extended back in time a quarter of a million years.  Over this extended period, the three most dramatic warming events experienced on earth were those associated with the terminations of the last three ice ages; and for each of these climatic transitions, earth's air temperature rose well in advance of any increase in atmospheric CO2.  In fact, the air's CO2 content did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm.  Such findings have been corroborated by Mudelsee (2001), who examined the leads/lags of atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature over an even longer time period, finding that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged behind variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years over the past 420,000 years."

[ see also: Indermuhle et al. (2000), Monnin et al. (2001), Yokoyama et al. (2000), Clark and Mix (2000) ]

• "Other studies periodically demonstrate a complete uncoupling of CO2 and temperature "

[see: Petit et al. (1999), Staufer et al. (1998), Cheddadi et al., (1998), Raymo et al., 1998, Pagani et al. (1999), Pearson and Palmer (1999), Pearson and Palmer, (2000) ]

• "Considered in their entirety, these several results present a truly chaotic picture with respect to any possible effect that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have on global temperature.  Clearly, atmospheric CO2 is not the all-important driver of global climate change the climate alarmists make it out to be."

 

Global warming and global dioxide emission and concentration:
a Granger causality analysis

http://isi-eh.usc.es/trabajos/122_41_fullpaper.pdf

•  "We find, in opposition to previous studies, that there is no evidence of Granger causality from global carbon dioxide emission to global surface temperature. Further, we could not find robust empirical evidence for the causal nexus from global carbon dioxide concentration to global surface temperature."

[ChessExpert]

its too much "us vs. them."

I agree. This also applies on the evolution threads.

No one chart is gonna make or bust the man-made aspect of global warming - its complex.

Perhaps no one chart can prove that man has no impact on global temperatures. But the charts I referred to (see posts 15 and 25) contradict the belief that human activity has been the major cause of global temperature variation.

[Finny]

... measures that correlate over the long run (10,000 years +) ...

Ten thousand years is hardly the "long run." I am looking at a graphic of Florida that shows how ca. 125,000 years ago, the state was quite a lot smaller than it is now because of water levels ca. 25 feet higher than today. The same map shows a Florida as it was "only" ca. 20,000 years ago and a HUGE amount larger in land mass because of water levels about 350 feet LOWER than they are today. 125,000 years is the blink of an eye in terms of one million years ... and one million years is the blink of an eye in terms of the big picture on this planet.

COMMON SENSE indicates that claims of human-caused global warming are something more than patently dubious. People who fall for it do so either because they are ignorant, or because they are willing to be deceived in the name of political power.