"Science" is nothing more than a marketing tool for those pushing an agenda

[jem]

now you are just being ignorant on purpose.

On the proxy charts co2 lags by 200 to 800 years.

On the instrument charts we also see co2 lags change in ocean temps by 12 months.

co2 lags in every data set.

This is why there is no science showing man made co2 causes warming.
Co2 trials warming and cooling and since the environment is so complex with plenty of negative feedbacks... its been impossible for science to find that co2 could be the cause when its the laggard. The best they can do is argue it amplifies warming and cooling. (and it may when we are coming out of a freeze. )

You seem to think so, since you continually refer to the CO2 lags temperature chart.

 

[piezoe]

... there is no such thing as settled science.

That is profoundly true, nevertheless we know what it means to say a science issue has been settled. But lately many who must be growing increasingly insecure about the positions they've taken on the clearly unsettled question of AGW, are growing more dogmatic in insisting that the issue is "settled". Perhaps the politics is, but the Science certainly isn't.

 

[stu]

The science is not "settled" on the gravity issue either. However positions taken on 'clearly unsettled questions' of gravity, do not mean gravity isn't science, anymore than positions taken on 'clearly unsettled questions' of AGW, do not mean AGW isn't science.

 

[Ricter]

now you are just being ignorant on purpose.

On the proxy charts co2 lags by 200 to 800 years.

On the instrument charts we also see co2 lags change in ocean temps by 12 months.

co2 lags in every data set.

This is why there is no science showing man made co2 causes warming.
Co2 trials warming and cooling and since the environment is so complex with plenty of negative feedbacks... its been impossible for science to find that co2 could be the cause when its the laggard. The best they can do is argue it amplifies warming and cooling. (and it may when we are coming out of a freeze. )

You dismissed my observation of the chart by citing proxy data problems. So I'm dismissing your observation of the same chart, for the same reason.

 

[jem]

that is not what happened and its not what I am doing.
I stated you were comparing proxy data to instrument data.

I suggest you should compare instrument to instrument - proxy to proxy.

==
now... if you really wish to discuss the truth about this area of science... we can do that as well.


proxy data... does contain a lot of statistical magic.

instrument data is being manipulated as well.

But I I doubt you are making the argument you can't trust science. you are just trying to dig you way out of hole.

You dismissed my observation of the chart by citing proxy data problems. So I'm dismissing your observation of the same chart, for the same reason.

 

[jem]

you see here... I questioned the comparing of proxies to instrument data.

comparing proxies with instrument data? Bubbles in ice vs air samples on the side of a volcano in HI... there could a little lost in translation.
your possible mistake is understandable.

The hockey stick guys make the same mistake on purpose... with plants and trees instead of ice.