Two comments:
First, this guy at least recognizes that global warming is occurring and has been since 1850. Others on this thread don't acknowledge that, like Steve. So at least this guy isn't insulting our intelligence. Rather, he's simply debating temperature and CO2 correlation.
It's an interesting analysis he does. However, one thing that casts some doubt on his analysis is this. In the last 150 years, our measurement systems for temperature and CO2 content in the atmosphere are better than the proxies for those that you have to use in geological time. Said another way, thermometers and our gauges for measuring CO2 content in this and the last century have a much lower margin of error than the proxies measures they use for geological time.
As such, when we correlate temperature and CO2 in the last 100 years, we have a much higher level of confidence in the results. Going back to geological timescales, as he said in his article, they have to use proxies and calibrate them against data in today's time periods. During that process, they make alot of assumptions. Any margin of error in their assumptions can throw off their calculations wildly, which may account for some of his results over the last 500 million years. Therefore, his conclusions may be made based on erroneous models with faulty assumptions.
Being a statistician myself, I'd much rather rely on records from the last 100 years based on measurement systems that are fairly reliable in order to make any correlations between temperature and CO2.
Much more compelling are his arguments at the discrepancies found in the last 100 years of data. |
