In article , NY
wrote:
"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.

You can, I understand, draw a straight line graph with the rise in crime
since WW2 and the number of refrigerators in domestic ownership up to about
1960. Was the crime casued by fridges?

--
Please note new email address: