smarterthantheaveragebear May 3rd 2012 1:47 GMT The people who are claiming that the deniers will deny no matter what are being ridiculous. The simple fact is we do not know why the earth is warming. It could be due to CO2, but it could not be. Correlation does not imply causation. If someone were to develop a model of CO2 vs temperature and for temperature to closely track this model would be convincing to me. The fact is there hasn't been. The idea that we should forfeit trillions of economic growth on this theory is ludicrous. Those backing global warming have yet to present their version of this graph: http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/01/31/smoking-and-lung-cancer-cause... Notice how the scales are not altered and there is a clear undeniable correlation. The correlations used by those backing global warming are fuzzy and inexact. Sense Seeker in reply to smarterthantheaveragebear May 3rd 2012 2:03 GMT That's a great idea, fuzzy bear! Let's emulate the smoking graph. Just like we reduced smoking rates, let's reduce CO2 levels and see if the temperature goes down 30 years from now! I propose to start with a stiff price on CO2 emissions. Funny that those climate scientists never think of such things and have to rely on us bloggers to come up with such sensible suggestions, isn't it? smarterthantheaveragebear in reply to Sense Seeker May 3rd 2012 2:11 GMT http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_500_yrs.html this is a comparable graph for CO2 and temperature. The correlation is just not there, and even if it was correlation does not imply causation Bayesian Acolyte in reply to smarterthantheaveragebear May 3rd 2012 2:13 GMT This "correlation does not equal causation" mantra is really old. There is a large amount of science that indicates Co2 is a greenhouse gas that has nothing to do with current global trends. The fact that the graphs line up is just icing on the cake, and not nearly the most important part of the argument. Sense Seeker in reply to smarterthantheaveragebear May 3rd 2012 2:18 GMT What you refer to is, I am afraid, non-peer-reviewed blogorrhoea. Can you find a real paper in a scientific journal like Science or Nature that supports your point? I might as well tell you now: No you can't. Bayesian Acolyte in reply to smarterthantheaveragebear May 3rd 2012 2:22 GMT Geocraft is made by Monte Hieb who works in the mining industry, not exactly the most unbiased source. Also compare the 500 year graph in your link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png which is an amalgamation of a bunch of more reliable sources, they look absolutely nothing alike. smarterthantheaveragebear in reply to Sense Seeker May 3rd 2012 2:26 GMT alright here you go both from peer review sites: temperature: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/loehle_fig3.JPG CO2: https://docs.google.com/viewer?pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgdbpAp0xAs_fW8dtrmkcyM... How anyone with a brain can claim that there is irrefutable evidence that human's co2 emissions has caused the recent minor warming of the earth is beyond me. I got both the graphs from pro human caused sites btw, why they never put them next to each other is beyond me ;) Fw7m3FyfGL in reply to smarterthantheaveragebear May 3rd 2012 5:47 GMT That's a blog. It's not a peer reviewed journal. That seemingly simply concept alludes you, and seems to validate the fact that you don't understand what you're talking about. I enjoy the debate, but you're not actually contributing anything but random things you're finding on the internet from unreputable sources. This goes a long way to demonstrating the attitude of 'grasping at straws' attitude of climate change deniers.