Those blips are also know as the mini ice age, ice ages, extinction events, and mass extinctions.

Somehow I'm not comforted nor filled with abandoned glee.

I don't think we can classify those as blips...

...our recorded temp history isn't all that great. ...but what I haven't seen is anything that convinces me that there is causality.

We have correlation, but we haven't shown true causality. In the summer it's hot, and people eat more ice cream. That is a correlation. Causality means that eating ice-cream makes it hot in summer.

This is what I am missing in the equation.

Darn!!! I was pretty sure RWebb was going to tell us that Global warming was responsible for lower temperatures.

This. The 100-ish years of solid data that we have is laughably statistically insignificant compared to the total sample size, aka 4.5+ billion years of the earth. Now we have media panic because we have the coldest temperatures.......in the last 30 years. OH MY GOD THE SKY IS FALLING! I know we are a society of instant gratification, but there was life on this planet prior to yesterday.

Hate to break it to you, but there's likely not a damn thing that you can do about it.

You are conflating time scales, for one thing.

Let's see what does CO2 do? Where does most CO2 added in the last 100 years come from??


Tell you what - you don't act delusional about things you are not trained to understand, and I will not not design jet planes.

Then prove it. With facts. With something resembling statistical relevance. With something resembling the scientific method. Without Hollywood celebrities, without simultaneously trying to sell me carbon credits or some other scam. Prove that the fluctuations in the Earth's temperature are due to man, and not just following the same trends that the Earth has followed for billions of years. Because based on the data that I have seen, the Earth appears to be doing exactly what it has done over the last 4.5 billion years. Until you can do that then it will be a THEORY.

Here, here! Tell it like it is brother.

Ridicule. Rule #5 courtesy of Saul Alinsky. Used when one has nothing in the way of truth or value to say.

"It" is well proven. Let me know if you want a reading list. Face it, whipped, I deal with this professionally, all the time.

Now, the important question is what the effects will be. I also have info on that.

I am completely uninterested in what Hollywood celebrities think about anything, much less science.

You also seem to not understand what a scientific theory is, although that has been discussed previously here.

You may have heard for example, about the "theory of gravity" or the "theory of evolution." And I admit, we scientists are often loose in use of the term theory.

So what do think of Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at MIT?

And why should your knowlege trump his?

His scientific work is voluminous and solid. His opinions outside of that are unusual, maybe because his personality is contrarian. You cannot find many scientists who agree with him, but you can find hundreds who don't.

No Webb, don't copy/paste. I take the time to reason out an argument, even though you disagree. Now tell me with facts why I am wrong. This is called polite discourse. Telling me via the Internet how smart you are without any support is worthless, because the Internet makes everyone smarter and more attractive.

Oh jeez....A story from the weather channel.....it must be true.

We being you and the Malamutes?

I indeed will copy/paste from my own lectures if I decide to take your "challenge" - don't take it too hard but I do not need to convince you. I also cannot teach an entire undergraduate course on the internet, nor am I interested in doing so. Nor am I certain that your background is adequate to the task (I know you are an engineer). But that would get us into an upper-div. or graduate level class. Nonetheless, if you will articulate a specific issue you want to be informed about, I just might have at it.

Here, let me help you out.

When they refer to an article in a scientific publication in BLUE, you move the mouse pointer over it and click! Then you can read the scientific paper on that. See?

Whether you can understand it is something else.

So much alleged intellect, so willing to accuse others of being wrong on the internet, yet unwilling to back up your arguments with facts? Please don't play the "I'm smarter than you" card, I'm very much not impressed that you have taught a course(s) in college. The bar for being a professor, or a PhD, appears in many cases to be frighteningly low. Throwing out your credentials is a piss poor substitute for fact, and I've known a good many professors that I wouldn't trust with mundane tasks on projects that I have managed.

So lets start easy. I have made multiple arguments in this thread in regards to the human impact on our climate, and why the data does not conclusively show that we (humans) have adversely impacted the natural climate patterns as shown over the life of the Earth. Show me why I'm wrong. Make me look like a fool. Explain in plain language (not copy/paste) why I'm full of crap, because truly intelligent people can break complex concepts down to make them easily understood by the layman. After all I'm just a lowly airplane engineer, you need to talk s l o w l y..........

Looks like you did most of the things in your last para. yourself.

My publications, lectures, and etc. are of course based on facts.

The bar for being an engineer appears in many cases to be frighteningly low. Not that I don't respect the ones I've worked with. You also conflate 'professors' with scientists who are also professors. Try not to make that mistake again.

If you have more insults, go ahead and post them.

If you'd like the simplest answer to the single substantive query you posted, which was about human causation, that is an easy one. Smallpox is not caused by humans but we still work to eradicate it. if that doesn't "work" for you, then see above re CO2 inputs, as I already answered it.

I'm glad to answer further posts if they are substantive, Matt.