Snip from the first link:
Quote:
|
CO2 doesn't match the temperature record over the 20th C. True but not relevant, because it isn't supposed to.
|
What? We're told time and time again that CO2 is prominent in the Global Warming arguments, but now we're told, because the data used doesn't fit with their theory I suspect, that it's irrelevant?
Either CO2 is relevant, or it isn't. This is the problem with the debate, since both sides are really guilty of "glossing over the facts", or completely ignoring them, when they don't fit their model.
Fact: The globe has been warming for at least 20,000 years, since the last ice age, as can be evidenced by the fact that I'm not posting from a glacier.
Fact: While mankind did indeed exist in these parts during that time, it is extremely doubtful that he had anything to do with the dramatic changes that took place at the time to turn the climate around, and while I'm sure mankind does have an impact now, I'm also quite sure that proponents of either side will exaggerate that impact to suit whatever program is paying them, as has been stated before.
However, to post an article stating that what we have been led to believe is the main problem, CO2, isn't relevant drops the relevance of the first link. As I said, if CO2 is a culprit, then CO2 levels are relevant, no matter what that site would have us believe.