> It has been proven without question that it is hotter now than it has been in 1000 years.

That's right and what I explained and what is in the NAS report I quoted.

Point: The current temperature is not unusual, and there are causes of a temperature this high that have nothing to do with CO2. So, that the current temperature, and the increase since the coldest of the Little Ice Age, are from CO2 are suspect.

So, there were climate models that tried to predict the effects of CO2. Well, as in the graph I showed, nearly all the models predicted temperatures way too high.

Point: The modelling efforts flopped.

First-cut Conclusion: We are really short on evidence that CO2 is the cause of any significant temperature increases, now or any time in the past 800,000 years of the Antarctica ice core data.

> This is a bullshit statement.

It's a perfectly solid statement: It's totally clear that temperature can go up without higher CO2. So, there are other causes. The leading candidate, over the short term, not the earth passing through some part of the galaxy over some many millions of years or some such, is sun spots. So, how to do something about sun spots? Hopeless. That was my point and is perfectly okay.

> The goal is to make sure we aren't turning the only planet we have into something either uninhabitable, or a nightmare.

There's not much chance of that, and there's essentially not even a clue that we are on the way to that. The energy in this debate is wild, irrational emotions, much like what drove the Myans to pour blood on a rock and have driven superstition and sacrifices for many thousands of years, those emotions now driven by quite a lot of US Federal money, money Trump is about to chop off.

By the way, the Mayan stuff is from

http://books.google.com/books?id=DgqLplWtGPgC&pg=PA76&lpg=PA...

from page 76 of

Susan Milbrath, Star Gods of the Maya:
Astronomy in Art, Folklore, and Calendars
(The Linda Schele Series in Maya and
Pre-Columbian Studies), ISBN-13
978-0292752269, University of Texas Press,
2000.

with

"Indeed, blood sacrifice is required for
the sun to move, according to Aztec
cosmology (Durian 1971:179; Sahaguin 1950
- 1982, 7:8)."

> If the temperatures continue to rise

Since when? That was my original point. Apparently for the past 20 years, temperatures have not risen, although CO2 has, at least the alarmists seem to say so. Maybe they are correct; maybe they just got their data from Hawaii with that data now corrupted by the volcano. Maybe the warmer surface temperatures of the Pacific around Hawaii caused out gassing of CO2 -- warmer water absorbs less CO2.

> Our current CO2 levels are orders of magnitude higher than anything found in the past.

An "order of magnitude" is a factor of 10. Your claim is tough to believe. IIRC we long were at about 280 parts per million of CO2 and, IIRC, from the alarmists, now are at about 400. That's not even a factor of 2. Moreover, we have no solid evidence that 400 ppm CO2 is actually warming the planet. E.g., the planet was this warm in the year 1000 when CO2 was not unusually high -- so, there are causes of warming other than CO2, and there's darned little reason to believe that CO2 is responsible for any warming now. Indeed, in the last 20 years, CO2 has been increasing but temperature has not. Indeed, from 1940 to 1970, CO2 increased but temperature declined a little showing that higher CO2 does not always lead to higher temperatures.

Net, the evidence is that CO2 has had little or nothing to do with the planet getting warmer, ever in the past 800,000 years of the Antarctica ice core data.

> High levels of CO2 have been linked with paleo level rising temperatures in the past

No, not really: From the 800,000 year data, none of the significantly higher temperatures were preceded by significantly higher CO2. Yes, after temperatures went up from whatever causes, not CO2, about 800 years later CO2 went up -- presumably from more biological activity from higher temperatures. That's your "linked".

> The earth is warming at an accelerating rate

What rates? Since when? Compared with what? As in the NAS reference I gave, the temperature now is not unusually high, is about the same as in the year 1000, is cooler than in the Medieval Warm Period, and has not increased at all in the past 20 years. I see no "accleration".

> You chose to highlight the years from 1940-1970. This isn't a discussion about the natural oscillations in weather. This about the proven sharp increase in temperatures as it compares to on a paleo scale.

Right, there are, call it, "natural oscillations," and maybe count
the cooling from 1940 to 1970 as part of that. So, we get two conclusions: (A) Then CO2 was higher than before (due to WWII, etc.) but the higher CO2 did not cause warming. (B) There are causes of cooling other than lower CO2; CO2 is not the only cause of temperature changes; so, we are not at all sure that the temperature now is from CO2.

> paleo scale

Huh? The usual claim is that higher CO2 now is driving temperatures higher now, and we need to cut back on human sources of CO2 now. Paleo is not part of that argument. And, to shoot down that argument, CO2 levels seem (the alarmists claim) to be at about 400 parts per million now and maybe increasing, but we're not seeing higher temperatures and have not for 20 years. So, where are the higher temperatures now from the higher CO2 now? My conclusion: CO2 has next to nothing to do with temperature, and we can forget about CO2.

> This article did not mention CO2, sin, greed, or corruption.

That's what the article is really about; the article is a manipulation, trying to sell band instruments and uniforms because of the threat of a pool table in town. So, the Music Man mentioned only the pool table. Well, what he was really interested in was selling some band stuff, taking the money, and getting out of town.

Trust me: The article is about CO2 and then reducing CO2 and then emphasizing renewables and then wind and solar and then batteries and then the money -- big subsidies. In the end it's about the money, e.g., the $1 B or so a year in research grants, the $1 B or so to Musk, forcing utility companies to accept unstable wind and solar power they very much do not want, etc. It's now a Green Glob, a big industry, all based on US Federal money from scaring the taxpayers.

> Global warming doesn't cause acidic oceans.

The claim is that CO2 in the water makes the water more acidic, causes acidic oceans.

> Maybe I missed it, so feel free to pull out some choice quotes.

The whole article is FUD in the sense that it's propaganda pushing the claim that CO2 from human activities is about to ruin the planet -- the sky is falling.

> The new climate denier stance is that you can't prove 100% without a doubt that it's human activity. The past decade has ended the "Is the temperature really increasing" debate.

Again, the temperature hasn't been increasing for 20 years, and now it's just where is was in year 1000 and, thus, not new or unusual and need not have been caused by CO2 since the temperature in year 1000 wasn't.

> denier stance

I don't know what that is; I'm just explaining what's totally clear. I'm not part of any group on climate; I'm certainly not being paid. Here I'm just trying to push back against propaganda.

I've here, now done my best to slap down the NYT propaganda and need to get back to my startup.