[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Not "ignoring" the last 100 years of data. Opining that it is nowhere near long enough to draw any conclusions. It's looking at a 100-year snippet out of a 100,000+ year cycle with no idea whatsoever what the data from the other 1000-hundred-year snippets were. Here's an analogy most will understand. A pro football game lasts 3600 seconds. So, what the climate change alarmists are stating is that by seeing team A holding the ball for 3.6 seconds, they know that team will hold the ball until the world ends. and if they happen to kick a field goal during that brief time, they are extrapolating a final score of 3,000,000 to 0. It simply makes no sense.

When a team has had its ups and downs over many seasons then you expect that team to win a few and lose a few this season as well. If you start to notice that the team is now winning a lot more than it is losing and that this started when Tom Brady was added then it would be foolish not to take notice of that. Maybe it isn't Brady, maybe it is Gronkoski, but something out of the ordinary is happening.

The rate of warming was fairly stable for a long time before beginning to increase (warm faster) around 1850. The increase in the rate of warming may not be related to the increase of CO2. However, the strong correlation between the timing of the two and the known effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas make it worth paying attention to.