Oh, no! I'm not saying that it is not accurate, as far as it goes. I am saying that considering the complexity of the issue under discussion it is severely wanting in its lack of complexity.
I just level the same criticism against it that a responder leveled against Limbaugh. I agree with the criticism against Limbaugh, but believe it would demonstrate incredibly unjustified bias on my part if I did not also see its application to that chart. Let me see if I can quote the criticism directly:
But the very fact that Limbaugh chooses to ignore all the complexity, and to attribute the change in our climate to a single cause, and to imply in fact that it is a "no-brainer"...shows that he's not interested in the truth of the matter, only in the big lie most convenient to his position.
I think this criticism says it best. Just substitute Limbaugh's name for anyone who limits their discussion to include only their favorite cause. Thus, my agnostic position.
Also, I am having trouble finding any credible source for the claim that Dr. Hansen is the chief climate scientist for NASA. He is the Director of Research for the GISS. But supposing that I personally view him as reputable, and that I consider his viewpoint to have merit due to his credentials and lack of personal gain from his findings, I'd say we are currently one for one. Where is the rest of this overwhelming majority?
I am not asking for only one name. I want the names. I don't care about the 99 out of 100 people that would hypothetically disagree with me and could hypothetically show me why. My father used that ploy far too often for it to have any impact. I want to know WHO is this nameless majority that is cited with near constancy. If you don't know who they are, and you agree with their viewpoint without knowing their qualifications for rendering an opinion, you have been successfully marketed, not convinced.
If it is true, it doesn't need mass marketing.
Lastly, I ask, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Since the solar activity chart matches the 200,000 year CO2 chart also, and since we cannot directly point to any causal factors to account for the increased CO2 in each spike, do we know which comes first? Well, one simple intuition says to me that the sun influences the earth to a greater degree than the earth influences the sun. Do you agree? Then with that in mind, look at the chart again and consider that the activity of the sun ALSO follows that charted path.
I would say that is a simple and compelling argument for not ruling the sun out as causation for natural increases and declines in CO2 concentrations.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
