Dan Luke wrote:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
I didn't see a whole lot of interest above. I'm amazed at the
rationalizations some so-called scientists will stoop to in an effort to
support a faulty hypothesis.

Was there some specific criticism you had?

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13

There is much more evidence that warming causes high CO2 levels than there
is for the converse, yet the rationalizations continue.

Let's hear it.



Did you even read the article?

It says "At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2
starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic
temperature during glacial terminations."

What part of "after" don't you understand?

It is then fun to watch them try to refute the data that clearly
contradicts their opinion about CO2 causing global warming rather than
resulting from it.

"The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000
years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows
is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the
5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been
caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data."

So the causality magically reverses after 800 years, eh? That is truly
funny.

The rest of the article is full of "could" and "might" and other waffle
words simply because these "scientists" simply don't want to accept the
fact that the data contradicts their favorite hypothesis.

And you call this science?

Matt