Replies

I’d like to add what I think is important here. Its not the Met office or any pro agw people think the data will still confirm their views. We will have to wait and see about that. Also, the Met seems to be focusing wheter or not the planet is warming or not. Thats not the big issue. The big issue is whether humans are causing global warming.

Absolutely, and that is the $64 trillion question.

Nobody can dispute that the temperature has risen during the 20th century.

AGW theory has three parts:

1) It was colder in the past than it is today, and CO₂ was lower.

2) When CO₂ increased in the atmosphere in the past, temperatures rose.

3) Therefore, as CO₂ rises, temperatures must also rise.

Disprove any one of those three "legs of the stool," and their arguments fall flat.

1) If it can be shown that it was just as warm or warmer during the Medieval Warm Period, when CO₂ was lower, then the whole AGW theory is wrong.

2) If it can be shown that CO₂ increases lagged, rather than led, temperature increase, then the whole AGW theory is wrong.

3) If it can be shown that temperatures have held steady in the past decade while the CO₂ continued to rise unabated, then the whole AGW theory is wrong.

Number two is the closest to being disproven. In spite of Algore's movie, scientists have conceeded that CO₂ did lag temperature increases by about 800 years in the past. However, they claim a nebulus and unexplained "forcing effect" that theorizes that "something else" started the temperature rise, then CO₂ increased, then temperatures ran away. See RealClimate: What does the What does the lag of CO₂ behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?

What they never explain is that temperature decreases also led CO₂ decrease by 800 years, so even with all that CO₂ in the atmosphere, temperatures fell caused by an equually nebulus "something."

Number one goes to the heart of trying to create the Hockey Stick temperature chart, which has been modified but CRU and IPCC still insist that today is warmer than the Medieval Warm Period.

And number three is still in dispute by the CRU and NASA, saying only that some unknown natural short term effect is "masking" the larger AGW signal, and that temperatures should begin rising again any day now.

What happens if we stall a Worldwide treaty for another decade, and temps don't rise? They were supposed to get this shoved down our throats in 1997 with Kyoto but didn't. They have to get it passed in Copenhagen in 2009,but won't.

The next decade will finally tell the tale one way or the other, if CO₂ continues to rise, but global temperatures do not.

Well said. I want to change what I think the big issue is here. Kyoto passed(thankfully not in the US) but is a joke. None of the signatories met their emmissions goals. Copenhagen could get a treaty passed but even Hansen came out and said it will be a joke. The big issue is statism. It doesn’t matter if AGW is real or not. It doesn’t matter if it curbs co2 emmisions. What matters is that laws be passed so that governments have complete control over the means of production. IE socialism. If Copenhagen yeilds a treaty, the socialists of the world get one step closer to their ideal, climate science/climate change be damned.

You forgot to mention the lack of sunspots.

sunspots need at least 50 gauss magnetic field to form....and the sun's magnetic field is slowly declining.