"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 10/12/15 19:58, tony sayer wrote:
That big Thames freeze over back whenever it was?, do so with sunspots
and the Maunder minimum was it?....

Well so they say, so they say. These days I am sceptical of every
'explanation'

I'm surprised, given the modern trend to blame all climate change on human
activity, that people haven't tried to claim that the big freeze on the
Thames in the 1800s was caused people people all deciding not to light their
fires or run steam trains for the preceding few years :-)

Climate change happens: it is incontrovertibly warmer now than it was in the
1800s, given that the Thames doesn't freeze over. But I disagree that this
is part of a relentless irreversible trend or that it is entirely/mainly
caused by human activity, rather than as a result of natural cycles.
*Correlation* between increased burning of fossil fuels and increased air
temperatures/ reduced area of North Pole doesn't necessarily imply *cause*.
Indeed there could even be reverse cause: increased air temperatures (caused
by natural events outside of our control) may lead to people travelling more
and to them burning more fuel to generate power for their air conditioning.
And of course if it's exceptionally cold, then there will be negative
correlation: more people burn fuel to heat their houses.

Sadly a lot of people seem to work on the "stand to reason, doesn't it"
level of "proof", where they find some evidence of correlation that supports
their pet theory that they want to be true.