Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
Do the facts mess up your argument?
|
I could ask you the same thing, Neil. Recent solar activity is a heck of a lot more relevant than plate tectonic theory vs. carbon dioxide concentrations, given by a AGW advocate. Climate change over the past 65 million years was solely due to carbon dioxide and not solar activity? Humans and humans alone drive the change in concentrations in carbon dioxide?
Oh, okay, Neil. AGW has been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. Not.
Why didn't you address the solar data, Neil? "Sunspots don't do anything because I said so!" No, sunspots don't do anything because they aren't accounted for in your precious computer models, because they haven't been properly explained yet. That, however, does not mean they do something to the climate. And judging from the graphs, I'm more inclined to believe that a giant thermonuclear ball in the sky does more to change climate than the 2% annual atmospheric carbon dioxide output by Mankind does.
Why didn't you address the Antarctic sea ice cover data, Neil? "Oooh, I can't tell what the long-term trends are, because they aren't there!" That's a pitiful excuse.
You know, it occurs to me that it would'a helped to see a graph of carbon dioxide concentrations overlaid on that pretty deep sea temperatures.
Or maybe not.