More arguments against AGW :-)

[eamonnshute]

Mary and Smithy will be delighted to hear of these new arguments against AGW:

legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/Bill.aspx?File=HCR1009P.htm

" ...there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect [sic] world weather phenomena ..."

If it is on South Dakota statute book then it must be true. Perhaps someone can give us a scientific explanation of these "astrological, thermological and cosmological dynamics"?

[rsmith7]

Do you really believe that human co2 emissions are the only factor in climate change eamonn?

[eamonnshute]

Of course not, but it explains the recent rapid increase, and it would be very surprising if the added CO2 didn't have a significant effect. No other hypothesis does.

[rsmith7]

Are you talking about the warming from 1850 - 1930 or from 1970 - 1997? What about the static temperature (if such a measurement is even possible) for the last 13 years? What about the fact that the hockeystick is utterly discredited and that the mwp was warmer than present.
What about the distinct possibility that all these measurments are spurious and we actually can't take the world's temperature to a fraction of a degree?
What if it's all just a political scare story to make us wean ourselves off oil?
How can the destruction of western economies help?

Afraid there's too many questions outstanding for a rational person to swallow the catastrophic AGW nonsense.

No?

[eamonnshute]

Smithy, stop moving the goalposts! Is there any serious denialist argument that you do not consider reasonable?

And do you really think that Earth can adjust to any amount of abuse?
Think of Earth as a space ship, with no hope of outside help. How much are you willing to abuse the life support system, knowing that the consequences might be catastrophic?

[rsmith7]

Yet after 200 years of such "abuse" NO anthropogenic signal can be detected despite billions spent looking for it.
Is there any alarmist argument that you do not consider reasonable?

[marchesarosa]

'it explains the recent rapid increase'

The recent rate of increase (1977-1995) according to Dr Phil Jones, in his Harrabin Q & A session, is statistically indistinguishable from that of the late 19th century and that of the 1920s to 1940s.

When you know, unequivocally, what caused THEM, Eamonn, get back to us. But until then don't bleat that the recent warming MUST be CO2 because it can't be anything else! This is the lame "explanation" of someone who doesn't really care about the real understanding of phenomena but who is more politically, morally, socially and emotionally engaged in the issue that any objective and clear-headed scientist has the right to be.