sildenafil

Jul

9

When One Goes Up, The Other (Strangely) Goes Down

Filed Under American Politics 

Shockwaver kindly sent me the graph below which demonstates the fallacy of linkage between global temperatures and CO2 emissions. Although the graph does not say, I’m assuming that the green line represents CO2 emissions, the blue, global temperatures.

So the question is, how can these two lines be so disconnected and yet we are expected to believe in AGW and tax businesses and individuals because of it. How can politicians justify that?

CO2-temp

Bookmark and Share

Comments

8 Responses to “When One Goes Up, The Other (Strangely) Goes Down”

  1. THX1138 on July 9th, 2009 10:48 am

    I think this is hat shockwaver is on about

    Nicely debunked here:

    The “Temp leads Carbon” Myth

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWJeqgG3Tl8&feature=related

    I have read quite a few sceptics inc Bjørn Lomborg but can I suggest that you read the new Lovelock book, no greenie leftie and a very worried man.

  2. THX1138 on July 9th, 2009 10:58 am

    This is great de bunk of the Global Warming stopped in 1998 myth

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M&NR=1

  3. An American on July 9th, 2009 1:39 pm

    THX

    I think you are out of your league on this…as am I.

  4. THX1138 on July 9th, 2009 1:56 pm

    An American

    “I think you are out of your league on this”

    I’m not going to let a little thing like that get in my way after all I’m a blogger.

    But seriously I have done quite a bit of reading on AGW and I am worried for my kids.

  5. Original Tony on July 9th, 2009 4:09 pm

    ThX…that’s why I find my faith comforting. If what the Bible says is true, I can sit back and relax and so can my kids. See how faith helps?

  6. shockwaver on July 9th, 2009 4:56 pm

    thx
    below is the opening paragraph from my june 25 post. i have never asserted that gw is not happening. my main abjection is that sincere scientists who question agw are shouted down, stifling legitimate debate. some of the proponents resemble a cross between carnival barkers, huckstering their side show and street thugs who beat up anyone who is not part of their gang.
    the message of the 25june post was the demise of science-based policy development and i am sticking to it.

    25june2009: the earth may or may not be warming. If the earth is warming, that may or may not be due to human activity. But I can assure you that the present public discussion on this subject is not a scientific debate. Rather it is predominately political and emotional. Special interest groups are driving the agenda, skeptics are treated like heretics, contrary evidence is ignored, and nonsensical solutions to the supposed problem are being proposed while obvious remedies are not pursued. I fear that the good name of science and the ability of science to impact policy in a beneficial way are being

  7. shockwaver on July 9th, 2009 4:59 pm

    sorry, here is the complete last sentence.

    I fear that the good name of science and the ability of science to impact policy in a beneficial way are being compromised by the sloppy way in which this topic is being treated in the scientific community.

  8. shockwaver on July 10th, 2009 6:19 am

    thx
    considering swine flu, acid rain, dioxin, red food dyes, cyclamates, ozone depletion, mad cow disease, bee colony collapse, flesh-eating bacteria, pesticide pollution, kudzu strangulation, the millennium bug, killer meteors, cell phone cancer, power line cancer, DDT, china syndrome, saturated fats and the mother of all disasters, global warming, maybe we should all run and hide under the covers.

Leave a Reply