Link to image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg

I inserted the average "peak value" to demonstrate we are still below it. Based on all the data, we are currently either before the peak, or its a cooler than typical cycle.

Naysayers Deny The Obvious - like birth certificates.

I believe this came right from the Fox News Channel.

How can your graph be true if the earth is only 6000 years old? Prove me wrong, idiots.

JP...your on a roll

Yeah...I think it did come from the FOX news channel. Isn't that the channel that has the highest viewers ratings on any channel of TV? I believe O'reilly has been number one for....let's see....almost 9 years. And Beck, without advertisers is closing in on the number 2 position. But whatever you do...don't listen to them. After all, with the majority of people who watch news watching FOX it would be a terrible waste to ignore those statistics. Better to stick with the other media outlets.

O'Reilly and Beck are entertainment for adults, kind of like MTV is trash entertainment for teens.

Charts lke this are useless without the source data for verification. There are plenty of research for hire groups that will find science to back what ever a particular industry wants them to. The Heartland Institute comes to mind there. Its not that I disagree but in this world it would be silly to take someone else's data at face value without seeing who is doing the work up.

As far as O'Reilly and Becks viewer numbers go they are opinion shows and not journalism which is in the entertainment category. Beck himself mentions frequently he is not a journalist. Fox is alone in its market without competition where all of the the other networks compete for the rest of everything else so of course their numbers look good it would be silly to think otherwise and just as silly to think that it is any way a fair comparison. Besides if we use viewer numbers are measure of accuracy we should get our information from American Idol.

At least YS didn't use his crayons on this one or did he? No it has numbers on three sides. Far more than I've seen in the past from him.

I agree, at differing times in history global warming and cooling has occurred. Just like hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis and other global events of this earth. The apology tour we have been listening to says Americans are the blame for every bad thing that has happened. Now we are being blamed for things the left makes up (man made global warming). Their thinking is if we can be tricked into feeling things are our fault then we will stand by and allow ourselves to be taxed and made to suffer. Make no mistake about it this is a power grab (money grab) just like the health care takeover. The more the government controls the more power they have over every part of our life.

What's your point? That GW is God's punishment for social liberalism? Is that why he killed his son (and/or he committed suicide)?

Y-S, facts and statistics, liberals ain't going to like that. You have to presnet a feel good argument, regardless of merit.

The earth cycles... volcanos contribute... BUT... we should lessen our impact! Nothing wrong with being good stewards of our enviroment. I don't think the left cares that much.. they have other agendas.

We are still waiting for the facts harrison.

For three years I have been asking for the deniers to post one published, peer reviewed, scientific study that comes to the conclusion that climate change is not, at least in part, anthropogenic. So far, nobody has been able to do this. Where is the science to back up your opinion? This isn't a battle over opinion, it is a battle over science. I don't see any SCIENCE (i.e.: published, peer reviewed, scientific inquiry) coming from the deniers...only opinion.

Deniers...where is your SCIENCE?

The FUNNIEST response was the one that criticized me for not providing the source data.

The link... it provides the source data which comes from N.O.A.A and is highly regarded as the basis for all global warming analysis. Vostok Ice Core samples.

Bastiat: "in part" has been added to your request now? Nobody disputes the question of "in part" we just disagree on whether that part is significant.

So far, nobody has refuted the periodic nature of global warming, the fact that we are in a natural warm cycle, the fact that we are below the average for a warm cycle.

It seems like we should at least wait until we exceed the norm.

JP: You are demonstrating ignorance if you believe that more than a few fractions of a percent of people believe the Bible is literal on the age of the earth.

Yosemite Sam,

Nuh uh! Prove me wrong, idiot!

Yosemite_Sam

Thanks. Its exactly what I wanted to know. If you meant the http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg link you may want to check it. There is a lot of bad data on this topic and I won't trust anything that I don't think is a credible source. Noah and Ice core sample are credible sources.

Yoyo: it's only been a few hundred years since EVERYBODY that believed in the bible BELIEVED it was 6000 YEARS OLD. You were burned at the stake if you thought otherwise. Your belief in the bible has evolved. Congratulations.

I don't really care if our planet is getting warmer or colder and for what reason. I DO want cleaner air to breath and more renewable energy and less dependency on the countries whose citizens hate us for buying their oil and giving the money to their Kings and Princes. I want it faster than the oil industry and the political party in their pockets wants us to get there. I don't care what has to be done to get us there faster. If we have to fight only one war at a time instead of two or ten then that's what it'll have to be.

2049er: My belief in the bible has not evolved, it was created in an instant when I realized that Jesus Christ died on the cross for the sins of all humanity.

I have always thought that the Bible held a lot of parables and stories that were designed to inform us about our nature, but were not 100% fact.

Your comment seems as if perhaps, given the data, you are evolving your viewpoint on global warming?

I also think we should keep the air clean and that we should not depend on Kings and Princes. I am not opposed to cleaner, smarter, more efficient use of energy.

Where we probably differ, is I am just as opposed to UN Bureaucrats telling us what to do as I am Kings and Princes. I do not believe we need a global authority overseeing our sovereignty or redistributing our wealth through cap and trade policies or carbon credits.

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2117/PeerReviewed-Study-Rocks-Climate-Debate-Nature-not-man-responsible-for-recent-global-warminglittle-or-none-of-late-20th-century-warming-and-cooling-can-be-attributed-to-humans

Peer Reviewed, here ya go!!! Warm/cool who cares....WE DON'T DO IT!!!

Let me "cloud" the Leftist' attack further:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/10/26/comments-on-ap-story-statistics-experts-reject-global-cooling-claims/

Natural Global Warming: Its only natural!

The silence is deafening.

Other than the personal attacks, the requests for UN sanctioned studies, or silence...there is still no response.

The chart is made up of data from Vostok, Antarctica showing by analysis of ice cores that the earth has warmed and cooled on a 120Kyr cycle. The strong evidence is that this is due to "Milankovitch Forcing" which means that gravitational effects upon the orbit of the earth and other planets causes a change in solar energy output. Other cyclical effects contribute to the variation which makes it a saw-tooth with some randomization rather than a sine wave, but the periodic function is undeniable.

Nobody can explain why we should expect that given our relative timing to the periodicity, we should not expect continued warming.

Nobody can explain why we should expend massive resources, or submit to a global authority to change something that is within the existing range of expected climate behavior.

Other than "The UN IPCC said so...nah nah nah" they got nothing.

CA_O4: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html

This is the raw data. I have downloaded it, stuck it into an Excel spreadsheet and obtained the exact same charts. (<400Kyrs)

WOW! - Finally...one published, peer reviewed scientific study claiming that climate change is not anthropogenic has been cited by the deniers. It only took 3 years of me asking, "Where's the science?" This study (the first one cited by UR, the second is not a study but a collection of comments about studies) was published in July of this year. Of course the study that UR cites is very controversial and many in the academic community believe that there are flaws but that is another conversation. Today I tip my hat to UR...after three years of deniers like YS attempting to argue that climate change cannot be anthropogenic because the weather has always changed it is refreshing to see UR present actual scientific data that he and the authors claim dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Nice work UR.

Bastiat: If you have to lie about your position, its clearly a problem. I have not been saying that climate change cannot be anthropogenic, but rather that the antropogenic component is insignificant relative to the natural causes.

I would acknowledge that if you are on the shoreline, and a large cargo boat goes by, you can measure a change in the tide level and that a portion of that change is human caused. But to extrapolate that sudden increase in the sea level with a presumed "global tidal wave" is where I have a big problem.

PS: You are the denier. You are denying the obvious..that global warming is natural, that it is periodic, that we are in a natural warm portion of the cycle, and that human causation has not been proven.

Bastiat, it took you 3 years to see the other side? You espouse a holier-than-thou attitude rather than take a side with scientific backing and argue against counterpoints. Instead you blindly accept your conclusion as concrete, refuse to accept any alternative view point (all while claiming some superior intellect as the causation -- "not peer reviewed, not this, not that, corrupt"). If you want to get something out of any debate, you first need to accept that there are at least two opposing view points.

Apparently this info came from the NOAA? I find that hard to believe because this is directly from their website:

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20091022_arcticreportcard.html

The highlights from the article if you don't want to click the link (It directly mentions greenhouse gas pollution):

"This year’s Arctic Report Card underscores the urgency of reducing greenhouse gas pollution and adapting to climate changes already under way.”

Among the changes highlighted in the 2009 update to the report card were:

* A change in large scale wind patterns affected by the loss of summer sea ice,

* The replacement of multi-year sea ice by first-year sea ice,

* Warmer and fresher water in the upper ocean linked to new ice-free areas,

* A continued loss of the Greenland ice sheet,

* Less snow in North America and increased runoff in Siberia, and

* The effect of the loss of sea ice on Arctic plant, animal, and fish species.

skimouth: The data is the data.

The data is based over a half-million years.

NOAA is a government agency. They have been funded to justify massive government growth, not to find that there is no need for global government intervention. Follow the money.

They did not fake the data, but they are faking the analysis.

They are faking the analysis?

I think we can all agree that when the data agrees with what we believe in, then we view it more accurate (we might even praise it), but when something disagrees with what we believe in we tend to immediately look for reasons as to why it's inaccurate. Maybe the purpose of the NOAA is to justify massive gov't growth or maybe they are just a research organization. No matter who the source is, someone can link it to some party or organization and twist it so that the research is biased and those behind the conspiracy are out for world domination. Unless I am mistaken, the NOAA was around before Obama and during the Bush Administration but I do not recall ever hearing about the NOAA flip flopping with change in leadership.

UR - there could be a thousand viewpoints on any debate. I generally investigate those viewpoints that are supported by objective evidence and disregard those viewpoints derived from some form of magical thinking. The deniers finally have some scientific evidence to support their argument on this scientific debate. My mind is still open on the phenomenon of climate change but that doesn't mean that all evidence is equal. It is true that I have some standards for the evidence I will evaluate related to this subject....this is for good reason....I grew tired of YS (as Rational Thinker) constantly posting the latest marketeering snow job from the Heartland Institute and others of their ilk. Opinions are not science.

"a collection of comments about studies" The IPCC does not conduct new research. Instead, its mandate is to make policy-relevant assessments of the existing worldwide literature on the scientific, technical and socio-economic aspects of climate change. Its reports have played a major role in inspiring governments to adopt and implement the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, a binding pact on greenhouse gas emissions. In other words the UN's IPCC is not made up of scientists but statisticians.

We all know what you can do with statistics.

Quit spending money on studies and move on by surviving with what you have and what will come in the future.

"Prove me wrong, idiot!" JP are you really bi-polar and in actuality Robert Wahl. I think Robert has the copyright on "Prove me wrong, Idiot" at least on the AJ blogs.

UR, I think you must have trumped JP as he has failed to address your comments. He's probably checking all the blogs looking for a comeback, watch out.

It's just more fun to watch sometimes.

Here is where the CO2 vs. Temperature chart is from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

The chart is referenced from this wiki article "The Great Global Warming Swindle" a 2007 movie

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

__________

"The Great Global Warming Swindle is a documentary film that argues against the scientific consensus that global warming is "very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations".[1] It has been described by both its original broadcaster Channel 4 and the British regulator Ofcom as "a polemic".[2]

The film, made by British television producer Martin Durkin, showcases scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who are sceptical about the scientific theory of anthropogenic global warming. "

"The IPCC was one of the main targets of the documentary. According to Houghton the programme was "a mixture of truth, half truth and falsehood put together with the sole purpose of discrediting the science of global warming ... "

__________

Durkin's known for flamethrowing for Exxon Mobil.

Look, it's getting warmer, and we are going to Run Out Of Drillable Petroleum. Oil companies don't want you to preserve, conserve, and innovate. They want you to just keep using more. So do politicians getting donations. So do the Dept of Defense contractors. It's really that simple.

Rat: The data for which that graph was created came from NOAA Vostok Ice Core samples. Its valid data. You attack the messenger, but ignore the data.

Rat, are you naysaying that the temperature of the globe has risen/fallen per the data?

Are you saying that we are not in the warm part of the cycle?

Are you saying that we are not even at the warmest point of a typical cycle?

What are you saying...or do you even know?

Man, this is a powerful graph. It shows what the naysayers hate to see shown. The earth naturally cycles from warm to cold and we are in a naturally warm part of the cycle.

The CO2 analysis by AGW people is only available for the last 150 years, or about .04% of the period covered by this graph and yet they base a global set of taxation, regulation and laws upon it.

I love it when I slam dunk the left so hard!!!!

Yaaaaaaaaahoooooooooooooooooooo!!!!

YS - we have covered this ground before...for some reason you want to lump the cause of climate change and what can be done to mitigate climate change into the same argument. They are not. CO2 may or may not be a primary cause of climate change...the bulk of the scientific evidence and inquiry to date indicate that CO2 is a primary cause of climate change...you choose to deny this. That is your right.

There are many climate scientists and others who disagree with you on the cause of climate change but agree with you that Cap and Trade, CO2 taxes, and other forms of government intervention intended to limit CO2 production may not produce the intended results and also may not do anything to mitigate climate change. Many believe that these proposals would cost trillions of dollars and provide little to no benefits.

Disagreeing with Science makes you a denier. Disagreeing with taxation that benefits nobody makes you responsible. Neither provides you with amy sort of bragging rights. Good luck with your approach..

A group of scientists, who all happen to work for a particular political movement, develop a theory based on .04% of the climate data available that the world is going to end unless that political movement is put in charge of the entire world economy.

Now, to those who support that political movement, they say "Our scientists say this is how it is and you are a nay-sayer if you do not believe it".

Most normal people realize that the evidence over the last half-million years, which constitutes 99.96% of the available data, shows that nothing is really happening. They see the existing situation as within the normal natural variation of the environment. They believe we should be clean, efficient, and careful, but they do not want to submit to a global economic authority based on biased science.

Why are the nay-sayers? Those who deny that global temperature variation is normal, or those who deny it is man made?

YS - If what you are saying is that "normal people" (non-scientists) are confused by the non-science that you and others claim as proof that human generated CO2 can't possibly be the cause of climate change, then I agree with you. That doesn't mean that your non-science is more valid or more true than the real science performed by actual climate scientists. You and your theories are from a non-scientific fantasy land...you have every right to believe in non-science. I hope that works out well for you. Good luck.

Bastiat -

I believe Sam is simply trying to tell you (and the rest of us by extension) that he is lots smarter than all those college-educated Democrat scientists who lie about global warming as part of a worldwide liberal conspiracy.

Sam's own truth-deficiency may be part of an obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Some OCD sufferers indulge in compulsive actions such as ritual hand-washing, but in his case the compulsion is to lie. The deeper objective is probably a wish to present himself as he wishes he could be, rather than as he actually is.

Skeptic - Perhaps you are on to something...I don't know. I can't understand why YS is incapable of differentiating the science from any proposed policy based upon the science. In order to believe YS' portrayal of this you would have to believe the following:

1. The scientific community is involved in a world wide conspiracy to make humanity believe that human generated CO2 is a primary cause of climate change when it is not.

2. This conspiracy is so well organized that it includes politically conservative as well as politically liberal climate scientists.

3. This conspriacy is so well organized that it successfully squashes the "real truth" before it can be reviewed, published, and shared with humanity.

4. The purpose of this conspiracy is to foist one world government upon humanity that will redistribute wealth from the comparatively wealthy to the comparably needy of the world.

5. That climate scientists and the scientific community are so enamored with the idea of "one world government" that they willfully participate in this conspiracy even though it would likely not benefit them personally.

6. That the only people capable of figuring out the real cause of climate change are YS and Robert Wahl.

You guys have fun with each other. You have totally failed to respond to the graph and the obvious facts it represents.

according to you the graph represents the obvious fact that climate change cannot be human caused. the climate scientists disagree with you. I will stick with the scientists on this one. thanks for playing.

What happened to the Ozone hole?

perhaps you should check between your ears.

seriously Jon...if you truly understood the SCIENCE behind the identification of ozone depletion, the SCIENCE involved in understanding some of the man made causes of ozone depletion, and the SCIENTIFIC recommendations to mitigate ozone depletion, you would realize that this example goes a lot farther in supporting my point of view that SCIENCE usually gets these types of things right rather than your point of view that SCIENCE can't be trusted and usually gets these things wrong. now about that empty space between your ears....:-)

Y'Sam:

No, silly. We're are having fun with YOU.

I apologize for not mentioning your chart before, but it's unclear what it's supposed to represent and I didn't want to embarrass you.

Is it your EEG? It's nice. Pretty colors. Does anyone in your family suffer from epilepsy?

Global warming is the biggest lie and we are being fooled. Man is not causing the earth to warm. The green movement is only in place to gather people to push for the lie. Is only purpose is to push for world wide carbon tax. Al Gores movie isn't true and has been labeled a phony by the British courts. photos in the movie has been forged admitted by NASA. The planet is in a cooling trend which is the natural cycle. its pretty much who you believe your TV or facts. In yet another bizarre consequence of global warming science, claims that global warming has spread to the surface of the moon and possibly other planets within the solar system has prompted enviro-religious leader Al Gore to file a class action lawsuit against NASA for damages done to the moon during exploration in the 1960's and '70's.

the new term should be solar system warming?..... tunnel vision kills.

bigboy - perfect...you tell me to believe facts rather than my TV...I am the one listening to the scientific facts...you are listening to non-science being communicated by non-scientists.

Your statement that Al Gore has filed a lawsuit against NASA for damage to the moon is proof that you cannot discern truth from fiction. This story is not true, never was true...it was a fictional "parody" (you can look up the word parody at dictionary.com if you don't know what it means). Sorry, but I won't be taking any advice about "truth" from someone incapable of discerning it.

There is one major problem when merely looking at this chart. The time span is too great - marked off at 100,000 years and is therefor too condensed to be of use. It has only be in the last 100 years or less that humans have been releasing mass quantities of CO2 into the air. You would have to zoom in 1000 times on the last fraction of the chart and compare that temperature/CO2 increase over time as compared to a 100 year span to a comparable previous increase. This chart proves the earth does naturally warm and cool, and I don't think any one will dispute that, but we're dealing with such a tiny fraction of this charts time span that it can't possibly show anything of use. I'd be interested in seeing if the data shows the increase rate over the past 100 years, or even 50, to be significantly higher than in the past, the same, or lower. I believe the fractions of time that are involved make that very difficult to do though.

For the record, I hold no judgement on either side of this debate. I'm merely pointing out the flaw in using this simplified chart as a basis of your judgement. Personally, I believe we just don't have enough data on either side to be 100% sure, because we're dealing with such a tiny fleck of time of the earth's history. And frankly even if we did find foolproof evidence, I doubt we'd still agree. So, given that view point, I choose to err on the side of caution and try to leave as small as a footprint as I can.