Originally Posted by Seaver

As my Psych Professor repeatedly says, "Corrolation does not mean causation!"

While this statement is generally true and very useful when evaluating hypothesis it does not come into play once something graduates to theory, as the Data has already created the link between cause and effect.

Temperatures have been going up since the mid 19th Century, and industry has increased since the mid 19th Century. These have two things in common, but there's no evidence one causes the other. The EXACT same data can be used to say Global Warming pushed industrialization along... absurd isn't it?

Actually, no it cannot. Climate change does not "Produce" compounds that might increase temperatures, whereas industry most certainly does. There is no doubt whatsoever within science that the use use of carbon as a fuel source releases CO2, nor is there any measurable dispute as to the effect this gas has on temperatures. There are issues that pertain the the level of said effect, but not to the effect itself. Denying the validity of the data collected does not make one seem informed about the chemical composition of the fuels in use.



Can those computer models explain the Medieval warming trend when Greenland supported a Viking colony of 10k people, with all their livestock (approximately 3-4 per person)? Or when the French were complaining that the English started making better wine then them? The answer is no, they just ignore it hoping we will too.

Yes, they can. Though using other data is more accurate for this time frame:

Quote:

Medieval Warm Period - 9th to 14th Centuries Norse seafaring and colonization around the North Atlantic at the end of the 9th century was generalized as proof that the global climate then was warmer than today. In the early days of paleoclimatology, the sparsely distributed paleoenvironmental records were interpreted to indicate that there was a "Medieval Warm Period" where temperatures were warmer than today. This "Medieval Warm Period" or "Medieval Optimum," was generally believed to extend from the 9th to 13th centuries, prior to the onset of the so-called "Little Ice Age." In contrast, the evidence for a global (or at least northern hemisphere) "Little Ice Age" from the 15th to 19th centuries as a period when the Earth was generally cooler than in the mid 20th century has more or less stood the test of time as paleoclimatic records have become numerous. The idea of a global or hemispheric "Medieval Warm Period" that was warmer than today however, has turned out to be incorrect.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globa.../medieval.html


Conspiracy theory? You misunderstand the argument because you don't want to hear it. People don't deny the world is getting warmer, the cause of it is under contention by scientists worldwide. You think there is a unanimous scientific contention of manmade global warming? Then you need to do read a lot more.

NASA recently announced there is global warming on Mercury, Venus, and Mars... is that because our industry? Oh nevermind, NASA is in on the conspiracy. Nothing to see here people...