Jamie, don't get sucked in. Twice now in this very thread, a graph has been shown that would make his claim "Unfortunately, throughout the history of the earth, this correlation cannot be shown. There is no empirical evidence available to demonstrate or prove the relationship between CO2 and temperature," proof of his trolling, because we have factually established there is such a correlation.

TrP - "Twice now in this very thread, a graph has been shown"

You mean like the 'hockey stick' graph by the IPCC, where Mann et al forged the data?

If you want to discuss a specific graph and its methodology, put it here.

But look at the Vostok Ice core graph, which has been used by the IPCC and Al Gore as evidence that CO2 has caused the temperature increases. What they failed to show was that in fact the CO2 increases occurred on average 800 years after the temperatures increased.

Yeah, keep your mind closed and don't get sucked in by facts.

this graph has been posted at least twice now: http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/paleo/400000yearslarge.gif

Yeah, that is the Vostok Ice Core data that actually shows Carbon follows temperature change by about 800 years. That graph PROVES CO2 does not cause temperature change.

Other things are in play. Since we get over 99% of our energy from the sun, that may be a better place to look. But it is hard to come up with regulations and taxes on the sun.

That's not Vostok, unless we moved Vostok to Greenland.

BOG: That graph, as you have been informed twice already is a graph of temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration over time, using data from ice cores in Greenland.

It was presented in the paper by Shakun et al. (2012), in the journal "Nature".

Why are y'all still arguing with the troll? Seriously. He is *never* going to believe anything at all you post. Ever. No matter where it's from, no matter what it says, no matter who it's from, no matter anything. He's right, you're wrong, that's the end of it.

Shakun was debunked a few times.

"The age of the YD shown on their Antarctic curve is from 13,000 to 14,700, nowhere near the age of the YD in New Zealand and the rest of the world. Considering the lack of adequate dating of the Antarctic ice cores and lack of correlation with New Zealand and global YD chronology, what this means is that their entire Antarctic curve is incorrect and needs to be shifted by nearly 2,000 years, taking with it the CO2 curve. This means that their entire argument for CO2 preceding warming during the last glaciation falls completely apart.

At this point, we haven’t yet gotten to issues with the AMOC, orbital forcing, or other possible causal mechanisms of climate change. Consideration of those issues would make this longer than most people would want to read at one sitting, so looks like they will have to await Part 3.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/08/did-shakun-et-al-really-prove-that-co2-precede-late-glacial-warming-part-1/

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/18/more-fatal-flaws-in-the-shakun-et-al-nature-paper-claiming-that-co2-preceded-late-glacial-warming-part-2/

And Another:

"And I leave everyone to ponder how far climate “science” has fallen, that a tricksy study of this nature can be published in Nature, and can get touted around the world as being strong support for the AGW hypothesis. The only thing this study supports is the need for better peer review, and at a more basic level, better science education."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/07/shakun-redux-master-tricksed-us-i-told-you-he-was-tricksy/

Thor - " He is *never* going to believe anything at all you post."

Apparently many in the scientific community don't believe the falsehoods told by The Believers.

Another -

"Now, there’s plenty of things of interest in there. It’s clear that there is warming since the last ice age. The median value for the warming is 4.3°C, although the range is quite wide.

But if you want to make the claim that CO2 precedes the warming?

I fear that this set of proxies is perfectly useless for that. How on earth could you claim anything about the timing of the warming from this group of proxies? It’s all over the map."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/06/a-reply-shakun-et-al-dr-munchausen-explains-science-by-proxy/

And on and on. You have to show the math. Not just a belief.

"The CO2 records show that CO2 started to increase from 6000 BC while temperatures were slowly declining. Willis writes "Look how they have cut the modern end of the ice core CO2 record short, right at the time when CO2 started to rise again". Did the Shakun et al authors decided to hide the CO2 increase because the rising CO2 during eight millennium of the Holocene while temperatures were declining contradicts the premise that the CO2 rise drives temperature?

See more at: http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=567#sthash.dfFHwSsn.dpuf

You have a pretty funny where Greenland is, dear friend.

Wow, BOG, four links all from the same website run by a discredited ex-TV weatherman who has no scientific qualifications, but who *does* have a substantial financial interest in denying man-made global warming.

In any case, a response was published in 2013 which addresses all of the "debunking" attempted by Mr. Watts:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

TrP - The graph presented as proof of carbon preceding temperature has been debunked many times. Address that fact.

That graph was presented to be 'proof' The Believers want to believe, but it was bogus.

Read the articles. Open your ming, just a little, and let some knowledge in.

And I do know where Greenland is - but now you want to obfuscate? Amazing.

@ BOG: "The graph presented as proof of carbon preceding temperature has been debunked many times. Address that fact."

I just addressed it.

@ thorfi: "Why are y'all still arguing with the troll?"

It's kinda fun. Sometimes he throws in something so stupid it's good for a laugh, like the time he suggested that in any situation with two possible outcomes, the chances are always exactly 50/50.

I might be struck by lightning tomorrow, I might not be. Therefore the probability of me be struck by lightning in the next 24 hours is exactly 50%. Genius.

Jamie -

You sure you have the right link? "Readers will be aware of the paper by Shaun Marcott and colleagues, that they published a couple weeks ago in the journal Science. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/#sthash.w4Op1nIl.dpuf

The paper was published in Nature, not Science. I skimmed it and it doesn't seem to be addressing the article referenced.

If you read that article, please post the relevant section, or tell me where it is.

@ BOG: Shakun and Marcott are colleagues and both the "Nature" and the "Science" paper were on the same topic and using most of the same research. The comments are thus relevant in both cases.

By the way thorfi if you missed BOG's amazing failure to understand the concept of probability, it was here:
http://webdiplomacy.net/forum.php?threadID=1312236&page-thread=4#threadPager

No, that graph we've been posting has NOT been debunked. You're talking about a graph from a study in the Antarctic, we've been posting a graph from a study in Greenland.

Ultimately, the reason why people deny obvious facts like climate change, evolution, the Holocaust, and the like, is because they don't trust the experts. Tell me, do anyone of you know from first hand experience that those things exist? You haven't seen the Holocaust happen. You did not go and visit the gas chambers. You did not read first hand the diaries and records of the Nazis. What you know about the Holocaust has been presented to you by historians. That's all fine if you trust the historians that they aren't making it up or distorting the fact, but if you think they have ulterior motives, then it is a logical conclusion that whatever they spend so much effort presenting to you, must be something that they want you to believe but is not exactly true.
The same argument for climate change: none of you are actually climatologists, and while you list research showing anthropogenic climate change, you did not actually do the data analysis or the models yourself and you are trusting the climatologists, like the IPCC, to have shown the truth. But you entirely discredit these organizations, then the logic follows that whatever they produce is discredited and thus climate change has nothing to do with man.

To an outsider that trusts that the science is correct, this distrust of what seems to be an overwhelming consensus is bogus. But from the average, non-financially interested denier's angle, that 'consensus' might as well have been made by the Illuminati.

I hope I have shed some light onto BOG's intransigence.

This of course leads to the question: why do they distrust the authorities on the matter? Because the people the deniers trust are saying they are liars. Whether their trusted sources are lying or not is another matter.

Speaking personally my distrust was initially sparked off by the Climategate emails. Their tone provoked my curiosity.

I read parts of those books and I actually were at a kz-camp, Theresienstadt, not one of the worst one, but still, had gas chambers and it was the one where my fellow Danes was sent during the war. Scary as hell to think of. "Arbeit macht frei" my ass. Funny how the same parole is being used by liberals in DK these days, to argue for less state securitynet - but that's a different story.

But rest of your argumentation is pretty solid Gobbledydook. Still, I think one of the strongest argument against global warming is actually the story about how we 40 years ago was told there was a global cooling because of man. These big theories changes, and that's probably why non-scientists tend to not believe in any of them.

IMO the whole discussion is stupid. We should trade fossils fuels out because it pollutes more. BOG claimed in another threat to be mr. healthy and mr. man, seems in consequent to use time against global warming if you care about your heath. Cause all the stuff we are told causes global warming are at the same time the stuff that pollutes our air, water and so on - stuff that we should be more concerned about, because what we breath today might kill us tomorrow.

That's also why there should be more regulation and taxation on pollution so you combine the expenses that are brought upon society by pollution. In cph. alone rapports show that this cost society 4 billions DKK and 540 human lives each year.

IMO global warming is the kind of theory that Americans and other countries leaders needs as the big story for why to intervene in the private sector, as your countries never have been that good at controlling pollution, especially by the private sector.

So to sum up. None of you should need to discuss global warming, there are better reasons to act upon the bad stuff the theory tells us we should do something about. This counts for both BOG and the rest of you.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-34763036

BOG was banned after all that.................LOL

Ohmygodwhat?

Hahahaha!!

Who was he a multi of?

I posit that goldfinger banned him in order to win this thread.