Oh, good, another AGW thread.

Instant lede literacy fail:

"SUMMIT COUNTY - With some intensive scientific sleuthing that spanned millions of years, scientists say they've been able to link changes in species diversity with changing climate."

Scientists have been sleuthing for millions of years.
Stopped reading right there.

/Methane killed my father. Prepare to die!

And imagine, there have been changes in climate for millions of years that humans did not cause.

/Color me incredulous.

See, I would have thought that a Romerologist was someone researching movie zombies.

/As opposed to a Rumerologist, which is someone studying Bruce Willis's kids.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Oh, good, another AGW thread.

Why can't science just go away?

DarnoKonrad: Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Oh, good, another AGW thread.

Why can't science just go away?

No kidding, you actually have to learn things to understand it. I mean that's just ridiculous.

FTFA: "By the numbers, the research showed correlations between species diversity and temperature change"

Sound obvious, but without the research, it would just be opinion.

And imagine, there have been changes in climate for millions of years that humans did not cause.

And because it has happened before without our help means we couldn't possibly be causing it this time, despite the fact that this time, change is occurring at an unprecedented rate.

/the law of conservation of energy and the third law of thermodynamics says you are full of crap

NotARocketScientist: And imagine, there have been changes in climate for millions of years that humans did not cause.

And because it has happened before without our help means we couldn't possibly be causing it this time, despite the fact that this time, change is occurring at an unprecedented rate.

/the law of conservation of energy and the third law of thermodynamics says you are full of crap

It's not unprecedented, it's LOGARITHMIC AND HYPERCRITICAL!
The second law of thermodynamics says you are tending toward chaos.
Right now, your human physical system is degrading irreversibly.

/You think I'm seriously going to argue science on a fark thread?
//You be buggin, jeeves.
///Paging Herr Doktor Asperger to the latest climate thread...

NotARocketScientist: And imagine, there have been changes in climate for millions of years that humans did not cause.

And because it has happened before without our help means we couldn't possibly be causing it this time, despite the fact that this time, change is occurring at an unprecedented rate.

/the law of conservation of energy and the third law of thermodynamics says you are full of crap

The problem is what we are causing, via climate change (which is vague and difficult to understand), pales in comparison to what we are causing by directly wiping out species and their habitats.

Pulling all the fish out the ocean and poisoning the water will do us in faster than releasing a few tons of carbon. But the carbon is something we can trade points on. Its a ponzi scheme that make someone alot of money and helps us ignore real problems like deforestation.

Driving an electric vehicle and putting up some solar panels will help to refill our smug tanks, but those things wont resolve the issues that are killing us.

I knew that smug Romero bastard was a lieberal lamestream media shill! Trying to tell us "facts" again that we debunked years ago through equivalence, deflection and discrediting the speaker. I knew that Saddam Hussein/Stalin islamofascist socialist moustache was a hint of something.

What's next, is he going to try to tell us that Barry Hussein Soetero is an American?

It's Victoria Jackson, that's all I can say.

/I've had briefings in congressional break rooms.

Just Another OC Homeless Guy: Oh, good, another AGW thread.

Not just another AGW thread...another EVOLUTION thread.

/Batten down the hatches.
//There would be Bevets-sign, had he not gone and got himself lost on the ether-webs.

Evolution is supposedly a good thing, but try to wipe out one underperforming species and people just go apeshiat.

NotARocketScientist:

And imagine, there have been changes in climate for millions of years that humans did not cause.

And because it has happened before without our help means we couldn't possibly be causing it this time, despite the fact that this time, change is occurring at an unprecedented rate.

/the law of conservation of energy and the third law of thermodynamics says you are full of crap

It's easier when you make shiat up and argue against THAT, isn't it? Nobody I have seen has said that, except apologists for warmer alarmists. The climate HAS changed, on a continuous basis, since it began. While that certainly does not prove that man has not changed the climate, it DOES set the bar higher in terms of proof that man HAS changed the climate. Especially when the current round of warming started a century and a half BEFORE the industrial revolution, and hasn't changed direction or intensity since the industrial revolution began, proving that ANY part of that is anthropogenic is a bit problematic.

And, while I have yet to meet ANYONE who claims that since the climate changed in the past, humans cannot be causing it to change now, quite frequently, even on Fark, people claim that ALL warming since the industrial revolution began is due to human activity. And that REAL position is precisely as stupid as the IMAGINARY one you are attacking here.

News flash: The Earth is covered, pole to pole and from the tops of mountains to the bottoms of oceans, with life. It's been that way for billions of years, despite 100+ cataclysmic events that have each wiped out 95+% of the species alive at that time.

way south:

The problem is what we are causing, via climate change (which is vague and difficult to understand), pales in comparison to what we are causing by directly wiping out species and their habitats.

Pulling all the fish out the ocean and poisoning the water will do us in faster than releasing a few tons of carbon. But the carbon is something we can trade points on. Its a ponzi scheme that make someone alot of money and helps us ignore real problems like deforestation.

Driving an electric vehicle and putting up some solar panels will help to refill our smug tanks, but those things wont resolve the issues that are killing us.

More that a bit depressing, but totally accurate. We are now in an ice age, geologically speaking. That is a very rare thing for this planet. The effects of carbon dioxide level increases on temperature have been WAY over-stated. Carbon dioxide levels are, also, at historic lows. Any carbon dioxide we can put in the air that this point is a GOOD thing. And, we are worrying about this positive factor while ignoring actual pollution. And, of course, breeding to the point where our attempts to feed all of our people are becoming destructive of the diversity of life on the planet in ways unmatched by, and must faster than, climate changes could ever do.

I also agree that the reason is that if carbon is seen as a villain, control of it gives governments unlimited control over all business activity, and an unparalleled tax revenue source. THAT is the issue with carbon dioxide release.

NotARocketScientist: And imagine, there have been changes in climate for millions of years that humans did not cause.

And because it has happened before without our help means we couldn't possibly be causing it this time, despite the fact that this time, change is occurring at an unprecedented rate.

/the law of conservation of energy and the third law of thermodynamics says you are full of crap

So what? Can you demonstrate that a warmer climate and more CO2-rich atmosphere would be bad for the environment?

/hint: the environment couldn't care less.

Meh, Global Warming hasn't bothered me all that much. Plus, I'm doing my part by storing ocean water in my garage to prevent the sea rising.

/Got barrels full.

DrPainMD: News flash: The Earth is covered, pole to pole and from the tops of mountains to the bottoms of oceans, with life. It's been that way for billions of years, despite 100+ cataclysmic events that have each wiped out 95+% of the species alive at that time.

That's fine and dandy, but also realize that "cataclysmic events that have each wiped out 95+% of the species alive at that time", or even events that aren't quite that cataclysmic may just have some very negative consequences for us and the world we live in. Be careful you're not setting the bar a bit too low.

way south:
Pulling all the fish out the ocean and poisoning the water will do us in faster than releasing a few tons of carbon. But the carbon is something we can trade points on. Its a ponzi scheme that make someone alot of money and helps us ignore real problems like deforestation.

Begone with your "common sense"!

GeneralJim: way south: The problem is what we are causing, via climate change (which is vague and difficult to understand), pales in comparison to what we are causing by directly wiping out species and their habitats.

Pulling all the fish out the ocean and poisoning the water will do us in faster than releasing a few tons of carbon. But the carbon is something we can trade points on. Its a ponzi scheme that make someone alot of money and helps us ignore real problems like deforestation.

Driving an electric vehicle and putting up some solar panels will help to refill our smug tanks, but those things wont resolve the issues that are killing us.
More that a bit depressing, but totally accurate. We are now in an ice age, geologically speaking. That is a very rare thing for this planet. The effects of carbon dioxide level increases on temperature have been WAY over-stated. Carbon dioxide levels are, also, at historic lows. Any carbon dioxide we can put in the air that this point is a GOOD thing. And, we are worrying about this positive factor while ignoring actual pollution. And, of course, breeding to the point where our attempts to feed all of our people are becoming destructive of the diversity of life on the planet in ways unmatched by, and must faster than, climate changes could ever do.

I also agree that the reason is that if carbon is seen as a villain, control of it gives governments unlimited control over all business activity, and an unparalleled tax revenue source. THAT is the issue with carbon dioxide release.


Heh. Careful here in that GeneralJim's reasoning would also claim that having human beings in existence is an anomaly over geologic time and therefore anything we can do to get rid of them would be "a GOOD thing". It's an appeal to tradition writ large and in an absurd fashion. The fact is that we're concerned with the impact of climate change on today's world and how it will affect us - not the world as it was millions of years ago and how it would affect dinosaurs.

Yep.
We humans are not helping things, but in the big picture, we're slime mold. And the big picture is more amazing and mind-boggling than most of us have the courage to imagine.

Enjoy this while you still exist on this Earth, people. Do as little harm as possible to other creatures and enjoy these, all of these amazingly diverse wonders you can perceive and drink in with your senses. You are the transient thing -- the Earth will endure long after we're dust. The Earth recycles.

HotIgneous Intruder: Yep.
We humans are not helping things, but in the big picture, we're slime mold. And the big picture is more amazing and mind-boggling than most of us have the courage to imagine.

Enjoy this while you still exist on this Earth, people. Do as little harm as possible to other creatures and enjoy these, all of these amazingly diverse wonders you can perceive and drink in with your senses. You are the transient thing -- the Earth will endure long after we're dust. The Earth recycles.


Just be careful in that there are of course a lot of different outcomes possible even if "the Earth will endure long after we're dust", and some are simply preferable to others. Just watch you're not just focusing on the "big picture" in order to avoid looking at the consequences of our current choices.

HotIgneous Intruder: And imagine, there have been changes in climate for millions of years that humans did not cause.



sometimes people get struck by lightning. therefore, handling uninsulated high voltage electrical equipment with your hands is ok.


DAMN YOU LIBERAL SIGN!

GeneralJim: [snip]


Wow. Some huge holes there. The biggest one by far is one that GeneralJim here himself seems to understand superficially, but does not seem to apply very well:

GeneralJim: Anyone involved in science knows the concept that "correlation does not imply causation." That means that just because two quantities may rise and fall together does not prove that there is a causal relationship between the two.

What GeneralJim does not appear to realize is that this also means that a lack of correlation by itself does not disprove causation. We know that other factors cause temperatures to rise and fall. That these other factors, depending on scale and situation, have affected temperature does not somehow exclude the existence of anthropogenic ones, as GeneralJim is attempting to argue.


The worst thing about this is that in this very thread and in relation to this exact line of reasoning, he himself claimed that "nobody I have seen has said that":

GeneralJim: NotARocketScientist:
And imagine, there have been changes in climate for millions of years that humans did not cause.

And because it has happened before without our help means we couldn't possibly be causing it this time, despite the fact that this time, change is occurring at an unprecedented rate.

/the law of conservation of energy and the third law of thermodynamics says you are full of crap

It's easier when you make shiat up and argue against THAT, isn't it? Nobody I have seen has said that, except apologists for warmer alarmists.


To repeat, GeneralJim is claiming here that "nobody I have seen has said that [because the climate has changed before without our help means we couldn't possibly be causing it this time]", and yet just a few posts later relies on that exact line of reasoning himself.

I'll leave it to you folks what this sort of thing says about how well thought out or rational GeneralJim's argumentation is.

GeneralJim: The idea that carbon dioxide is in control of planetary temperature is quite simply unscientific. It can easily be shown to be false.

Anyone involved in science knows the concept that "correlation does not imply causation." That means that just because two quantities may rise and fall together does not prove that there is a causal relationship between the two. Think about it... People see two things rising, or falling, at the same time, and tend to conclude that they are causally related. Relying on that natural tendency to make connections, occasionally when they do not exist, has saved our collective bacon more than once. Noting that those who eat the green fuzzy berries usually die a few minutes after eating them is IMPORTANT.

But, connections can also be "seen" where none really exist. A decent recent example is the horrifically bad connection made by some people, ignorant of the processes involved, between vaccination rates and autism. People see (rightly or wrongly is irrelevant) vaccination rates have gone up, and autism rates have gone up. So, without a rationale, some people make the connection that vaccinations cause autism. There is no support for this, whatsoever.

Note, though, that the situation DOES have "correlation," if not causation. The two DO go up together. (Yeah, it depends on other factors, but work with me here...) As it turn out, though, any correlation is mere coincidence.

The idea that carbon dioxide levels control planetary temperature is even less scientifically supported than the idea that vaccinations cause autism. Carbon dioxide levels and planetary temperature do not even correlate at the macro level. Observe:


The two quantities appear to be quite independent. And, that's true. It takes looking at things in two particular ways to make it APPEAR that carbon dioxide controls temperature, and both of them are dishonest. The first one is from Al Gore's PowerPoint Science Project, and it is a lie. Observe:


This graph allegedly "proves" that changes in carbon dioxide "cause" the temperature to change. There's a problem, though... Those are MICRO level changes. That is, let's say that, to make up some numbers, that carbon dioxide levels are changing from a minimum of 180 ppm to a maximum of 300 ppm (which is ABOUT right...) The difference is not great. It is ESPECIALLY not great when one considers that if a change of 120 ppm were causing such changes in temperature, good Lord, what would the temperature be if carbon dioxide levels were to rise, say, by 7000 ppm?

But, that's not the worst of it, for those pinning their hopes on scaring people into accepting government control of any activity which generates carbon dioxide. The worst of it is that the scale of the demonstration is arranged so that it is nearly impossible to notice that the carbon dioxide levels go up AFTER the temperature goes up, and down AFTER temperature levels go down. Carbon dioxide levels, at the micro level, FOLLOW temperature. This is due to outgassing and uptake by the oceans. Those putting together the graphs simply HAD to know that, and used them to mislead, rather than to inform. Bad boy, Al, bad boy.

And, the second way to look at the process to make it appear that carbon dioxide is heating the planet is to just look at the period of time since the industrial revolution. In that time scale, while mankind is raising carbon dioxide levels, the temperatures are rising. They ARE going up together. (Jennifer Connolly, take note.) That is enough to convince non-scientists that carbon dioxide levels ARE going up. But, if one is looking for the actual cause of temperature change, there are MUCH better correlations. Observe:



But, again, this is not the worst of the problems faced by the idea that carbon dioxide is controlling temperature. The current run-up of temperatures has been going on since LONG before we started putting carbon dioxide in the air, so the current increases are grossly unlikely to be caused by anything humans have done. Again, see for yourself when the current warming started:


The current warming started just after A.D. 1700, and, at that time, warmed more quickly than it is warming now, all without the benefit of the industrial revolution, which started around A.D. 1850.

So, the fact that two quantities rise and/or fall together does not, in itself, prove that they have a causal relationship. But, carbon dioxide levels and planetary temperature do not even have that correlation between them. There is no reason whatsoever to think that carbon dioxide levels have a significant effect on temperature.

Slight issue, the Industrial Revolution began in Europe in the early 1700's.

KiplingKat872:

Slight issue, the Industrial Revolution began in Europe in the early 1700's.

Meh. It's an arguable point. It started with textiles, and started with water power, which was starting to be replaced, in England, in the early 1800s, with coal-fired steam power.

The issue is not when the first things happened, but when humans began to have an effect upon carbon dioxide levels. That was in the mid-nineteenth century. England pursued it in advance of the rest of Europe. A quick quote on the subject from Wikipedia: "The period of time covered by the Industrial Revolution varies with different historians. Eric Hobsbawm held that it 'broke out' in Britain in the 1780s and was not fully felt until the 1830s or 1840s,[7] while T. S. Ashton held that it occurred roughly between 1760 and 1830.[8]

The issue, for climate, is moot, as the temperatures were rising at the close of the Little Ice Age a bit before 1700. It's an interesting point, historically, though, and depending upon what one considers the conditions necessary for the industrial revolution, you might well be correct. For the purposes of climate, however, the invention isn't the important part, it's the wide-scale use of fossil fuel that matters. Thanks for bringing up an interesting point.

I'm not going to bother arguing with the big green liar in this thread, I'm just going to point out that several of his graphs are obviously faked, and bear no resemblance to the actual data.


Temperature data is from NASA, solar irradiance data is from PMOD.

Note how the actual data in now way resembles the graph he posted of temperature vs solar irradiance?

GeneralJim: KiplingKat872: Slight issue, the Industrial Revolution began in Europe in the early 1700's.
Meh. It's an arguable point. It started with textiles, and started with water power, which was starting to be replaced, in England, in the early 1800s, with coal-fired steam power.

The issue is not when the first things happened, but when humans began to have an effect upon carbon dioxide levels. That was in the mid-nineteenth century. England pursued it in advance of the rest of Europe. A quick quote on the subject from Wikipedia: "The period of time covered by the Industrial Revolution varies with different historians. Eric Hobsbawm held that it 'broke out' in Britain in the 1780s and was not fully felt until the 1830s or 1840s,[7] while T. S. Ashton held that it occurred roughly between 1760 and 1830.[8]

The issue, for climate, is moot, as the temperatures were rising at the close of the Little Ice Age a bit before 1700. It's an interesting point, historically, though, and depending upon what one considers the conditions necessary for the industrial revolution, you might well be correct. For the purposes of climate, however, the invention isn't the important part, it's the wide-scale use of fossil fuel that matters. Thanks for bringing up an interesting point.

And it just happens to be rising at a near exponential rate, faster than we have any geoligical record of, in the midst if a massive population explosion accompanied by massive industrialization? Just coincidence?

In any case, pollutants are bad, not only for the climate and the cute lil' animals, they are bad for us. So we need to cut down on emissions, period.

way south: NotARocketScientist: And imagine, there have been changes in climate for millions of years that humans did not cause.

And because it has happened before without our help means we couldn't possibly be causing it this time, despite the fact that this time, change is occurring at an unprecedented rate.

/the law of conservation of energy and the third law of thermodynamics says you are full of crap

The problem is what we are causing, via climate change (which is vague and difficult to understand), pales in comparison to what we are causing by directly wiping out species and their habitats.

Pulling all the fish out the ocean and poisoning the water will do us in faster than releasing a few tons of carbon. But the carbon is something we can trade points on. Its a ponzi scheme that make someone alot of money and helps us ignore real problems like deforestation.

Driving an electric vehicle and putting up some solar panels will help to refill our smug tanks, but those things wont resolve the issues that are killing us.

Came to say this. The well documented direct actions of humans make the alleged effects of AGW pale into background noise. The greatest threat to polar bears for example is humans with shotguns. If humans with shotguns stopped shooting polar bears with them then the polar bear population would be rising. If humans with chainsaws stopped cutting down trees in rainforests the rainforests would be fine etc etc etc. Dynamite fishing in coral reefs, raw sewage and farm runoff pouring into the oceans causing algae blooms etc etc etc

Also any `science` that can only say "We are 66% sure it is having an effect (implied 33% not sure)" is not science until it gets to "we can PROVE that it is having an effect"

HotIgneous Intruder: And imagine, there have been changes in climate for millions of years that humans did not cause.

/Color me incredulous.

/And ignorant?

Damnhippyfreak:

GeneralJim: Anyone involved in science knows the concept that "correlation does not imply causation." That means that just because two quantities may rise and fall together does not prove that there is a causal relationship between the two.

What GeneralJim does not appear to realize is that this also means that a lack of correlation by itself does not disprove causation. We know that other factors cause temperatures to rise and fall. That these other factors, depending on scale and situation, have affected temperature does not somehow exclude the existence of anthropogenic ones, as GeneralJim is attempting to argue.

You would have a better success rate if you stuck to what YOU are trying to argue. You consistently mis-state what I am saying. We have a warming trend that started before people put any significant fossil carbon dioxide in the air. The warming has been quite consistent, and has, averaged long-term, not significantly changed. In the meanwhile, carbon dioxide has zoomed up, with no apparent effect on the warming.

The fact that warming has not changed with the addition of gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions each year doesn't do much to support your cause, but it clearly, in itself, does not falsify it. What it DOES do is give you a burden of proof of significant weight. What you are saying is that, while the warming we are seeing was of natural causes at first, at some point, it switched seamlessly over to being driven by anthropogenic causes. You need to show that transition. Good luck.

What he is claiming here is that since "carbon dioxide FOLLOWS temperature changes", therefore "carbon dioxide cannot be the cause of warming", which explicitly relies on the idea that "because the climate has changed before without our help means we couldn't possibly be causing it this time". The fact that he's completely lying about what skepticalscience.org says about this point doesn't help.

First, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that you are ignorant of the concepts of leading and lagging indicators. Given that lack of understanding, you MIGHT just make the above statement our of error, rather than as an attempt at misdirection. What I am discussing is NOT as you describe. What I am talking about is that historic carbon dioxide follows temperature, on an ongoing basis, with about an 800 year lag. Like this:



Remember that? It was brought out as part of Al Gore's PowerPoint presentation, to "prove" that carbon dioxide controls Earth's temperature. There were lots of OOHs and AHHs, since it is so clear that the two are related.

Remember how you go nuts when I post the CET thermometer readings, the longest instrument temperature reading in existence? You always gripe about the magnification of the scale, or some such, I'm never quite sure how an accurately labeled graph containing accurate data is misleading, but you are somehow convinced that all data presented must be presented in the fashion that most favors your "side" in this. Sorry, that is only in the MSM where that will happen.

Well, you should LOVE going off on Al Gore then. Because the diagram he is projecting here is of a rather long time-scale. As a matter of fact, time is so compressed in this chart that it is impossible to tell that the TEMPERATURE is LEADING carbon dioxide, not the other way around. Since he had the data, it's clear Al Gore KNEW that, and is simply using this chart to mislead people. I would think you would have a word or two about this...

When you use an appropriate scale, it's clear that as the temperature warms up, more carbon dioxide is released into the air from natural sources -- namely, the oceans. And, as even the skepticalscience warmer alarmist blog says, if it's trailin', it ain't causin', to paraphrase. Take a look:



As to your claim that I am lying about what skeptical science says -- it's a lie. Here is what they say about cosmic rays: "between 1970 and 1985 the cosmic ray flux, although still behaving similarly to the temperature, in fact lags it and cannot be the cause of its rise." (new window)

With their denial of science, however, they fall into a trap. In their rush to discredit cosmic rays as a determiner of climate, they point out (correctly) that a lagging factor is not the controlling factor. The "oopsie" moment in THAT, is that carbon dioxide is, not coincidentally for a few years like cosmic rays, but CONSISTENTLY, CONSTANTLY lagging behind temperature changes. Thus, by their own logic, changes in carbon dioxide level CANNOT be a major factor in planetary temperature. All this, of course, flies in the face of their oft-parroted "Feedback and forcing!" bullshiat from a year or so ago.

Additionally, though, skepticalscience is in the awkward position of implying that temperature on the planet somehow controls cosmic ray flux, as the temperature drives carbon dioxide levels. I'd love to see what mechanism they propose for THAT.

KiplingKat872:

And it just happens to be rising at a near exponential rate, faster than we have any geoligical record of, in the midst if a massive population explosion accompanied by massive industrialization? Just coincidence?

Seems to be. Solar activity has doubled over the last century. Not only has insolation increased, but the increased solar activity keeps more cosmic rays away from Earth, leading to fewer clouds, thus lower albedo, and more warming. Also, the roughly 60-year cycle has been going up since 1970 or so. It will be heading down now, for a while.

And, this is by no means an "unprecedented" or "alarming," or any other panic-inducing adjective, warming cycle. On the chart below, note that rises like our recent one are the norm, not an exception. Rises much steeper and longer than the one we just finished start at, for example, at about A.D. 1685 and A.D. 1815.

In any case, pollutants are bad, not only for the climate and the cute lil' animals, they are bad for us. So we need to cut down on emissions, period.

Sure, I agree. Pollutants are bad, and we should work on eliminating them to the maximum extent possible. On the other hand, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and all the unwarranted focus on carbon dioxide means that very little attention is being paid to ACTUAL pollutants.

dready zim:

Also any `science` that can only say "We are 66% sure it is having an effect (implied 33% not sure)" is not science until it gets to "we can PROVE that it is having an effect"

I have to disagree with this point. I MUCH prefer "science" that gives an estimate of certainty, however fuzzy such estimates are, rather than announce a best guess as a certainty. There has been WAY too much of that in the Chicken Little pronouncements of doom made by climate alarmists.

It's like the paternity tests on various shock-talk shows -- when they pronounce someone "the father" of a baby, they are careful to state that there might be as many as three possible fathers on the planet (about one in a billion chance of a false positive IOW) -- such is the limit of the test. In the same way, when the auditing software finds that there is only one chance in twenty thousand that the NASA GISS and Hadley CRU data are legit, and not manufactured by people, that factor is important to one's understanding.

whatshisname:

HotIgneous Intruder: And imagine, there have been changes in climate for millions of years that humans did not cause.

/Color me incredulous.

/And ignorant?

So... You're suggesting that climate has NOT changed without human help?

Damnhippyfreak:

To repeat, GeneralJim is claiming here that "nobody I have seen has said that [because the climate has changed before without our help means we couldn't possibly be causing it this time]", and yet just a few posts later relies on that exact line of reasoning himself.

I'll leave it to you folks what this sort of thing says about how well thought out or rational GeneralJim's argumentation is.

So, my self-appointed stalker and watchdog lies about what I am claiming. I'll leave it to you folks [to decide] what this sort of thing says about his honesty, and/or intelligence.