JFK, MLK, RFK and the Continuing Unspeakable with Regard to Global Warming Denial

[Albert Doyle]

"Most scientists knew the ice core samples showed CO2 rose after temperature." Well, if they knew this to be true why is there a claim being made that CO2 is driving current global warming when that is clearly impossible due to the fact that the one claimed to be the EFFECT (global warming) precedes the one claimed to be the CAUSE (rising CO2 levels)? This is inescapable logically. It is illogical to claim (all temporal restraints being equal) that any given EFFECT precedes the existence of the conditions (CAUSE) necessary to bring that EFFECT about.

I already answered that. I said the Greenhouse Effect is scientifically valid and you failed to include it in your one-sided submission. In other words while you cite the order of cause and effect in the CO2/temperature relationship of long-term cycles you failed to account for the straight Greenhouse Effect caused by the documented rising CO2 levels we presently have. You're arguing a partial argument while ignoring what I said in my last post. The simple answer is there has to be some scientific effect from the present increase in CO2. It is actually your side that offers the bs with its feedback arguments.

The TRUTH (as you admit) is that WE DO NOT KNOW "what, if anything" will "happen" do we? No, we do not. Moreover, your assertion that we now have an unprecedented spike in CO2 levels is without foundation. Depending on the source, CO2 levels were this high between 5 and 15 million years ago...long before humans were here with their industrial revolution to blame.

Very cavalier of you Greg. Except that isn't exactly true. We do know there's enough evidence that increases in CO2, no matter what order they occurred in, were associated with climate events that could result in a mass extinction of the human race if they occurred today. Your arguments are fatally flawed because they fail to acknowledge that you won't find any temperature rise in the ice cores that wasn't accompanied by high CO2 levels.


You show a good example of the flaw in your logic I pointed-out once again here. Just like when you mixed the straight Greenhouse Effect with long-term cycles you conflate CO2 levels with rates of increase or "spikes". You're dead wrong above when you say my citation of unprecedented CO2 spikes is "without foundation". Absolutely wrong. If you studied the data you would find there has never been such a rapid increase in CO2 in such a short time period in the ice core samples. The reason for it is an Earth history-unprecedented transfer of subterranean fossil fuel CO2 into the atmosphere via the economy. This spike is unprecedented and risks triggering a climate event that has never been seen before in Earth history. Instead of minimizing it with flawed logic like you do the more responsible would see a potential serious threat that deserves more concern.

" The flaw in your argument is it doesn't give due heed to the straight Greenhouse Effect that is a valid scientific phenomenon and will raise temperatures on its own as it is mostly likely presently recorded doing. "

You make no sense. You attempt to come across as knowledgeable, yet what you write is gibberish. The Greenhouse Effect is real. It is not a scientific phenomenon. It is a name for a natural process that is necessary for the sustenance of life on Earth. Without it the planet would be a frozen wasteland. More than 98% of the Greenhouse Effect is a function of WATER VAPOR, the exact amount of which is a variable, and therefore unknown.

Sorry Greg. You can't get away with Charles' gibberish bashing with this topic. I'm afraid it is you who is guilty of what you accuse me of since there's no reason why a "phenomenon" can't also be real. Deniers are the ones who brought up the water vapor feedback arguments. They have since been refuted. From your responses I think you just don't understand the point. What I was saying is you have failed to separate the distinct phenomenon of the Greenhouse Effect from Earth's long term cooling and warming cycles. My point was that your logic failed to scientifically account for the necessary Greenhouse Effect from the recorded rise in CO2 that presently exists. Water Vapor is one part of Global Warming but it is the result of human-caused increases in CO2 as the initiating driver. You have to keep the scientific chain of events in correct order. I think you've not only failed to answer my point but show that you don't even understand it.

Wait. Stop. The "cycle timing argument" was not mine. It was and is the "global warming alarmist's" argument--only they have it backwards, as you have already admitted. Nice bait and switch.

Again, you seem to not understand what I'm saying. I was saying you haven't answered for the necessary scientific results of the recorded human-caused increases in atmospheric CO2 and how they relate to the whole process. You are arguing an incomplete argument of long-term CO2/temperature relationship without acknowledging other related valid scientific influences. What I'm trying to say is there is a valid CO2/temperature relationship no matter what order they occur and that you haven't see the possible CO2 reaction that might follow or its climate results. The order of CO2 rises in reaction to temperature increases in natural warming cycles has nothing to do with this. You're failing to answer to the fact there has never been a human-caused unprecedented rise in CO2 before or what its consequences could be.