I need an Explanation of how CO2 Causes Climate Change

You mean the cartoon from the cartoonists alarmist blog? For one, it has nothing to do with much of anything other than titillating the likes of useful idiots.

- - - Updated - - -

Ah yes, a 7 year old article about 1971 is sooooo out of date. LOL

 

#

The part compiled by political activist and jobbing cartoonist John Cook over at SKS..... all of it in other words

 

Instead of attacking the source tell me what part is wrong? Oh! And BTW SS is backed by Queensland University

 

Because it is irrelevant and something made up by a cartoonist that has nothing to do with reality. It does play well to useful idiots.

Skeptical Science is affiliated with no political, business, or charitable entity. The fact that Cooks data resides at QU and they have threatened to sue for people for actually seeing some of the data behind the ridiculous 97% consensus should tell you something.

 

HUR HUR HUR!!!

"Possible cooling" yeah right - just as we are coming out of a minimal



- - - Updated - - -

If Einstein played a musical instrument would that make all his work irrelevant because he was a musician???

Link please to the threat to sue from UQ

 

Your graph pretty much shows we are entering a long term minima of smaller and longer cycles. Temperature on earth follows by 10 to 15 years so the next 10 years or so we will find out. As it is right now the Arctic has been recovering and temperatures have not risen for almost 2 decades.

 

It is possible that the sun will enter the lower phase of the cycle but it is equally possible that the current cycle continues to build

As for the Antarctic - look at the bigger picture http://www.theguardian.com/environm...1/climate-change-antarctic-sea-ice-expedition

Oh! 'and I would still like to see some proof about UQ 'hiding data:

 

After all, nothing moves science forward like suing to keep data hidden.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/where-did-97-percent-global-warming-consensus-figure-come-from/

 

Hang on - this was ILLEGALLY obtained data, Something STOLEN and you think only threatening legal action was wrong??

 

Call me picky but Einstein was a scientist and Cook has freely admitted on his own blog that he most certainly isn't

 

Cook has a degree in solar physics - Einstein was a patent clerk

 

No he doesn't he has a degree In Physics minus the 'Solar' part. Cook has never been employed in any field of climatological research and indeed has never been involved in any scientific endeavour of any kind whatsoever as his blog clearly admits. If memory serves Einstein actually was

I've got a degree in engineering but that doesn't automatically mean I can design nuclear submarines

 

No he has not been employed in climate research but that is irrelevant

This same person won a Eureka Prize from the Australian Museum

 

Irrelevant ? If that is so then he is your prophet then I take it

Wow 'Eureka Prize ' you say. Kinda like Harry Potter then

 

Irrelevant - he has the background to be able to read science literature and knows how to reference work. I have NEVER caught him out cherry picking, selectively quoting, misquoting, posting contradictory information, and or outright lying but I HAVE caught all the big name "sceptics" doing exactly that,

Any time you want I will go one on one with you comparing the veracity of someone like Cook with someone like Watts

 

Gosh, you mean Cook hid the data? How professional.

 

As if changing the units changes anything about the graph. Seriously, you may have missed that Cryosphere Today and NSIDC also use KM instead of miles. But like I said before, if you can't refute the message, shoot the messenger.

 

You mean the misleading message?

 

The message is that Arctic sea ice has been declining since about 1980, something your own graph shows. How's that misleading?

 

No death spiral, it has stopped declining. Thought you might see that but I guess not.

 

No but data is not always available especially if it contains personal information but what part of ILLEGAL is not filtering?

 

Well I have and a vast number of times too and with virtually every claim he has ever made (his posted graph being fine example) so how long have you got ?

You have already admitted Cooks scientific integrity is irrelevant so you've blown your credibility sky high anyway. This is clearly a religious thing for you so debating your zealotry is pointless

 

Actually methane from northern peat bogs an' tundra is a bigger problem...

... it puts more hydrocarbons in the air...

... an' Granny says if it gets concentrated enough...

... the world gonna blow up inna big fireball...

... like it says inna 2Ptr.3.7 & 10 inna Bible.

 

It is called good science. Professional scientists posit an hypothesis and make the data available so other scientists can duplicate and validate. You will have to ask yourself why Cook needed to hide this data.

 

Okay I have a couple of days off lets go one on one. You try to show up Cook And I will prove Watts is a liar