Finally.

[SpontaneousOrder]

He is a paid consultant to BHP et al. Plain enough?

This link:

well-established link between CO2 and temperature

[SpontaneousOrder]

'scientific proof' is a bit of an oxymoron.

Only if you don't understand what the word proof means.

[pjclarke]

This link:

Well, I'm sorry that you found the word 'link' ambiguous when used alongside this graph.



Clearly I should have used a more specific word like 'correlation' perhaps, just to sledgehammer the point home for the more linguistically cautious.

Similarly 'proof', is a rare thing in science, there's no proof that smoking causes cancer for example, science works with the body of evidence . The multiple lines of evidence leading the IPCC to conclude that AGW is a reality is laid out in the IPCC reports and there's a chapter dedicate to detection and attribution, alongside useful executive summaries.

Objectivists commonly take a word,*change its meaning to fit their needs, and then complain that no one else is using their definitions. This has often led to confusion in debates, as neither side knew that they were both speaking two differentlanguages.

Objectivism - RationalWiki

Hmmmm.

[pjclarke]

Bonus

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953

[EternalOptimist]

Does it really matter?

of course not. The GHG warming theory relies on water vapour and a hotspot
warming poles etc.

the theory is busted. You cant set out a theory where water vapour warms the planet on the back of CO2 then claim the CO2 has done it all on its little lonesome.
The theory is bunk

[LucidDementia]

No - historically CO2 acts as a positive feedback - the glacial/interglacials are triggered by cycles in the Earth's orbit. CO2 acts to amplify the effects of the changes in insolation as slow changes in temperature cause it to be released from or absorbed by the oceans (mainly). This explains the 'lag'.

The difference now is that we are injecting the stuff directly into to atmosphere, so it is a forcing, not a feedback.

You crack me up. The temperature goes up and then CO2 is released. However you want us to believe that CO2 being released increases temperatures. If both are true the planet would be a furnace and we never would have existed.

You're all raving lunatics.

[pjclarke]

You crack me up. The temperature goes up and then CO2 is released. However you want us to believe that CO2 being released increases temperatures. If both are true the planet would be a furnace and we never would have existed.

You're all raving lunatics.

The Earth is not a true black body, however Stefan–Boltzmann still applies.

[EternalOptimist]

meanwhile, the ice is up

[pjclarke]

Probably because it seems to.

Just for giggles:



That little red line at the end is our "dangerous" bit.

Erm, no it is not.



Caution: very little of what is posted at WUWT qualifies as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

[DimPrawn]

meanwhile, the ice is up

CO2 raising the melting point of ice no doubt...