Martin Brown wrote:
On 02/12/2011 13:41, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Martin Brown wrote:
On 02/12/2011 11:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/12...carbon_levels/



I mean it must have caused it. Nothing else changes climate like CO2,
does it? Stands to reason dunnit?

You obviously did not look at the original research that this wilfully
misleading piece is based on did you?

It is very interesting to go back to the original source material when
dittoheads trumpet new research and try to spin it for AGW denial.

The original article is in fact strongly along the lines of a CO2
decrease drove major ice formation at the poles. See Perdu Univerity
press release instead of the unreliable (on this topic) TheRegister.

http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/resea...laciation.html

Basically a fall in CO2 below 600ppm allowed permanent ice to form.
Allowing for some hysteresis that means that it probably won't
completely disappear (at equilibrium) until CO2 levels get somewhat
higher than that. To put it into perspective at the present fossil
burn rate of 20ppm/decade hit we will 600ppm around 2100 (likely
sooner).

The original article is in Science and is strongly in support of the
hypothesis that glaciation in the past was driven in large part by CO2
forcing. Annoying this URL is Pay-per-View but it will be in libraries.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/334/6060/1261

Of course when you apply dittohead spin the message is inverted.

BTW You have crossed the line.

You are not a sceptic you are a denier who will clutch at any and
every straw to avoid accepting that CO2 is relevant to climate change.


Don't be silly Martin.

Can't take a joke, at the ad hominems again.

You pretend it is a joke now that you have been called on it.

I am trying to illustrate something rather different..but that whooshed
past you.

The average member of the public would more than likely be taken in by
that article; as it seems you were despite your protestations now.

The first thing is the way facts can be twisted to meet agendas, on BOTH
sides.

Of course.

The second is to illustrate the character if those on the warmist side,
and you are doing a fantastic job of making them out to be bigots.

I fight fire with fire.



Personally I find cold water more effective.

But then I have had experience of putting fires out.