A better hypothesis for what?
Anthropogenic climate change has become the new religion for urban leftists. How dare you insult the prophet muhammad? You "deniers" will pay!
The only other times CO2 has risen so drastically it lead to mass extinctions. So yes, it has happened before, but to call a mass extinction 'nothing unusual' is incredibly stupid.
You continue to state this lie, even when you've been caught out with it.
2015 was reported at 0.87ºC, hardly 'spectacularly wrong'.
So you think Suzuki and Gore are out to rule the world?
The medieval warming period was largely a local event, with larger changes in the Northern Hemisphere and a smaller change globally. There was higher solar radiation and lesser volcanic action, the two largest of the 'natural variation forcings', which lead to a slight increase. We are experiencing much higher changes now with lower solar radiation and more volcanic action, which should make the planet cooler, instead its been getting much warmer due to man made CO2 releases.
There was twice as much CO2 in the atmosphere.
It wasn't, as far as I know.
Of course there is. In Canada, the lowest percentage of people (by a wide margin) believing humans are partly or mainly the cause of climate change can be found in the fossil-fuel powerhouses of Alberta and Saskatchewan, where many are employed in that field or otherwise profit from it (such as through enriched tax coffers). To not draw the correlation there is to be willfully blind. Geographic demographics are hard to dismiss.
I'm sure the majority of supporters are left-wingers. Keep in mind I am economically Conservative in my views and prefer small government, and yet I still believe we have a social responsibility to the environment. It shouldn't be about special interest groups (aka, people who benefit economically from government decisions), but about macro impacts. This is one area where government should play a role.
average global temps where higher during the medieval warming period. and ice ages occurred milllions of years ago when CO2 levels were higher than today
0.04% is not a high that's a trace gas
Too funny. The self-declared expert on science still doesn't know what the word "baseline" means.
Interesting side note: Many of the published paper's list of authors are IPCC authors and the list includes known AGW enthusiasts Ben Santer and Michael E. Mann.
So you keep talking about evidence but refuse to actually follow scientific method. Not a surprise.
If you're confused why your thread title is incorrect, follow your own link and read the editors note.
That's wrong. Present day temps are higher.
No, CO2 levels were lower during the ice ages and about double when the temp was higher.
That doesn't mean it doesn't have major effect. O2 and N2 aren't greenhouse gases, CO2 has a big effect on global temp, not O2 or N2.
Nope, you are spectacularly wrong, as you are wont to say.
Same bullshit lie, already exposed as bullshit.
Exactly. And as your own graph showed, the 0.85ºC prediction is based on the HadCRUT4 baseline -- not the NASA baseline.
Interesting side note: Many of the published paper's list of authors are IPCC authors and the list includes known AGW enthusiasts Ben Santer and Michael E. Mann.
The 0.83ºC temperature we bet on was based on using the NASA baseline dates. Trying to claim it was HadCRUT just shows you lying, yet again.
We went over this before, you were the one who was caught making basic mistakes. You didn't even know what the different baselines were, how they work or why you fucked up so much.
OMG!
That's a paper that claimed that the increase in global temperature slowed a bit, not that it 'paused' or 'stopped'.
